challenge), reconsidered and upheld by 2010 WL 3834049, at *8-14 (2010). The void-for-vagueness doctrine operates in much reduced force outside of its core area of application, criminal law. “To find a civil statute void for vagueness, the statute must be ‘so vague and indefinite as really to be no rule or standard at all.’ ” Seniors Civil Liberties Ass’n, Inc. v. Kemp, 965 F.2d 1030, 1036 (11th Cir.1992)(per curiam)(quoting Boutilier v. INS, 387 U.S. 118, 123, 87 S.Ct. 1563, 18 L.Ed.2d 661 (1967)). The Honorable Ira DeMent, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, wrote: The void-for-vagueness doctrine applies in civil cases as well as criminal ones. See, e.g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1048-51 [111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L.Ed.2d 888] (1991)(<HOLDING>); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 159-64 [94
holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied holding the aeca and its implementing regulations not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendants holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague holding statute unconstitutionally vague as applied to mere possession of money on jail premises