AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Prison Litigation Reform Act:
Exhaustion of Remedies - Part One, 2011 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Prison Litigation Reform Act:
Exhaustion of Remedies - Part Two, 2011 (5)
AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: The "Three Strikes"
Rule In Prisoner Civil Rights Litigation, Part 1, 2016 (6) AELE Mo. L.
J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal
Article: The "Three Strikes"
Rule In Prisoner Civil Rights Litigation, Part 2, 2016 (7) AELE Mo. L.
J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Recovery of Mental/Emotional Distress Damages Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 2018 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
The
U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the order of a special three-judge court ordering
that the California state prison system reduce its population from 156,000
prisoners, nearly double capacity, by approximately 46,000 prisoners, or 137.5%
of design capacity within two years. Current overcrowding was found to have
resulted in inadequate medical care and mental health treatment. The Court
found that the injunctive order complied with the stringent requirements of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, and that the court below properly gave
"substantial weight" to any potential adverse impact on public safety
from the order. Brown v. Plata, #09–1233, 2011 U.S. Lexis 4012.
Federal trial court did not have authority, under
Prison Litigation Reform Act, to enjoin further transfer of female prisoners
eligible for state incarceration from county jails to an allegedly overcrowded
Alabama state prison, since only a three-judge panel may issue "prisoner
release orders," and only under certain circumstances. 18 U.S.C. Sec.
3626(a)(3). Further, the requested order would conflict with an existing order
by a state court in pending litigation in which the state officials had been
ordered to accept "state-ready inmates" sent from county jails. At
the same time, the defendant prison officials' alleged "lack of
funds" did not excuse them from presenting a satisfactory plan to
alleviate problems of overcrowding at a state women's prison previously found
to violate inmates' Eighth Amendment rights. Laube v. Haley, 242 F. Supp. 2d
1150 (M.D. Ala. 2003). [N/R]
296:120 Man
confined in a state mental hospital based on a finding of not guilty by reason
of insanity was not a "prisoner" for purposes of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act's filing fee or "three strikes" rules; no rule
prohibited him from pursuing federal civil rights claim himself rather than
through his court-appointed guardian. Kolocotronis v. Morgan, No. 01-1308WM,
247 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2001).
[N/R] Prison
Litigation Reform Act does not prohibit trial court from allowing plaintiffs
the right to amend their complaints when dismissing a lawsuit for failure to
state a claim. Lopez v. Smith, No. 97-16987, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000).
275:170 Texas
prisoner was deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies when he properly
filed grievance, despite the fact that prison system did not address some of his
arguments in its response to his grievance; lawsuit over alleged failure to
protect him from assault by another prisoner could proceed. Powe v. Ennis,
#98-40234, 177 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999).
270:90 Trial
judge properly dismissed prisoner's lawsuit alleging that he was placed in a
cell with a dangerous inmate who injured him, when lawsuit failed to name
prison officials claimed to be responsible; plaintiff prisoner was not
entitled, under Prison Litigation Reform Act, to notice or an opportunity to amend
complaint before court dismissed it. Lopez v. Smith, #97-16987, 160 F.3d 567
(9th Cir. 1998).
» Editor's Note:
See also In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, #97-01, 105 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir.
1997), holding that the PLRA clearly overruled the "opportunity to amend
or correct" rule for pro se prisoner-litigants proceeding as paupers.
259:107
Correctional officer's Christian proselytizing activities did not violate the
Free Exercise or Establishment of Religion Clauses of the First Amendment; Muslim
prisoner's right to practice his religion was not substantially burdened;
federal appeals court also rules that First Amendment claims are not impacted
by provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act barring claims for mental and
emotional injury without physical injury. Canell v. Lightner, 1998 U.S. App.
Lexis 9281 (9th Cir.).
260:123 Federal
appeals court finds unconstitutional, on separation of powers grounds,
provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act calling for immediate termination of
consent decrees entered without factual or legal findings that relief granted
is "narrowly drawn," goes no further than necessary to correct a
violation of a federal right, and uses the "least intrusive means
necessary"; 9th Circuit appeals court stands alone in rejecting
constitutionality of this provision. Taylor v. U.S., 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 8550
(9th Cir. 1998). » » Editor's Note: All other federal appeals courts to date
which have addressed this issue have reached the opposite conclusion from the
one announced by the Ninth Circuit in the case reported on above. See Hadix v.
Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 1998) (Sec. 3626(b)(2) does not violate
separation of power principles); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424 (11th Cir.
1997) (same); Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649 (1st Cir.
1997) (same); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 1997) (same); Plyler
v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 2460 (1997)
(same); and Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 1997) (Section
3626(b)(2) is constitutional but does not terminate consent decree; only
jurisdiction of federal court terminated).
260:125 Federal
appeals court overturns trial court's injunctive order requiring prison
officials to provide religiously mandated vegetarian, non-dairy diet containing
no grape products to prisoner who claimed to be a "Nazarite Disciple"
of Jesus Christ Messiah and then asserted that he was a Rastafarian; trial
judge improperly failed to allow defendants to respond to prisoner's assertion
of Rastafarian faith and failed to make findings required for injunctive relief
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237 (8th Cir.
1998).
261:136 Lawsuit
alleging that correctional officers themselves assaulted prisoner was not a
lawsuit over "prison conditions" requiring the exhaustion of
available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, as
lawsuit alleging officers failed to protect prisoner from assault by other
inmates would have been. Rodriguez v. Berbary, 992 F.Supp. 592 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
» Editor's Note: In the following cases, prisoners were required to exhaust
administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuits: Tafoya
v. Simmons, 116 F.3d 489 (Table) (10th Cir. 1997) (inmate must exhaust
administrative remedies regardless of whether or not the administrative action
is futile); Morgan v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 976 F.Supp. 892 (D. Ariz.
1997) (inmate's claim that prisoner officials threatened his safety and allowed
other inmates to assault him considered a prison condition and therefore must
be grieved); Midgette v. Doe, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15918, 1997 WL 634280
(S.D.N.Y.) (inmate must exhaust his administrative remedies in a failure to
protect claim); Mitchell v. Gomez, 1997 WL 305273, No. C96-3939 FMS, (N.D. Cal.
June 2, 1997) (inmate must exhaust administrative remedies for a claim that
prison guards incited other inmates to assault him); McCoy v. Scott, 1997 WL
414185, No. C 97-0472 TEH(PR), (N.D. Cal. July 15, 1997) (inmate must exhaust
administrative remedies for a claim that prison officials ignored his concerns
about problems with his cellmate).
262:151
Provision of PLRA barring prisoners from seeking damages for mental or
emotional injury without a showing of physical injury did not apply to lawsuit
paroled prisoner brought against prison officials after he was released,
federal appeals court holds; court rejects his argument, however, that
participation in substance abuse program constituted "brainwashing"
that was cruel and unusual punishment. Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321 (7th Cir.
1998).
263:168
"Three strikes" provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),
barring prisoners from proceeding as paupers in further lawsuits after three
suits are dismissed as frivolous, did not apply to prisoner lawsuit pending at
time PLRA became law. Garcia v. Silbert, #96-2154, 141 F.3d 1415 (10th Cir.
1998).
262:152 Federal
appeals court rejects argument that "separation of powers" was
violated by provisions of PLRA providing for immediate termination of past
consent decrees or injunctive orders entered without specific factual findings
of violation of a federal right. Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.
1998). » Editor's Note: A number of other courts have rejected similar
arguments. See Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424 (11th Cir. 1997) (district
courts retain jurisdiction to amend consent decrees as significant changes in
law and fact require); Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649 (1st
Cir. 1997) (consent decrees mandating forward-looking injunctions are final
judgments subject to revision to the extent required by equity); Benjamin v.
Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162 (2nd Cir. 1997) (termination provision of PLRA merely
limits remedial jurisdiction of federal courts); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d
1081 (8th Cir. 1997) (consent decree is an executory form of relief that
remains subject to later developments); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365 (4th Cir.
1996) (judgment providing for injunctive relief remains subject to subsequent
changes in the law). Only one federal appeals court to date appears to have
accepted the argument that separation of powers is violated by these
provisions. See Taylor v. U.S., 143 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 1998), reported in Jail
& Prisoner Law Bulletin, No. 260, p. 123-124 (August 1998).
249:136
Requirement that prisoner pay filing fee for appeal in civil rights case
applied retroactively to appeal pending at the time Prison Litigation Reform
Act became effective. Moreno v. Collins, 105 F.3d 955 (5th Cir. 1997).
250:154 Prison
Litigation Reform Act's provisions requiring prisoners to pay filing fees for
lawsuits and appeals did not violate prisoner's right to access to courts,
First Amendment freedoms, due process, equal protection or protection against
"double jeopardy." Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281 (6th Cir. 1997). »
Editor's Note: See also Roller v. Gunn, 107 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 1997), holding
that the PLRA's fee provisions do not impose unconstitutional barriers to the right
of access to the courts.
250:154 Filing
fee requirements of Prison Litigation Reform Act applied retroactively to
prisoner's pending appeal, filed before effective date of the statute, federal
appeals court rules. Strickland v. Rankin Co. Correctional Facility, 105 F.3d
972 (5th Cir. 1997).
253:10 Prison
Litigation Reform Act provision denying prisoners the right to file civil
lawsuits as paupers after having three prior suits dismissed as frivolous or
malicious is upheld. Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818 (5th Cir. 1997).
253:10 Sore and
bruised ear inmate had after incident with correctional officer was too minor
an injury to be the basis for an excessive force claim; prisoner's claim also
failed requirement, under Prison Litigation Reform Act, that he show a
"physical injury" to support any claim for emotional or mental
suffering. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997).
254:22 Federal
appeals court rules that provisions of Prison Litigation Reform Act requiring a
prisoner seeking to proceed as a pauper pay a filing fee and file a certified
copy of his prison fund account did not apply to a former prisoner, now free,
appealing the dismissal of his lawsuit; plaintiff was still required to file
affidavits showing his current assets. Haynes v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137 (5th Cir.
1997).
255:39 Federal
appeals court rules that federal statute requires appealing prisoner to pay
filing fee for his appeal despite the fact that court was ruling that appeal
notice was filed late and that appeal would therefore be dismissed. Williams v.
Roberts, 116 F.3d 1126 (5th Cir. 1997).
255:39 Prisoner
who had previously had three lawsuits dismissed as frivolous could still
proceed with new lawsuit, despite "three strikes" rule of Prison
Litigation Reform Act, when new lawsuit claimed that prison librarian put him
in imminent threat of serious physical injury by allowing inmate law clerk to
read his legal papers indicating that he was a government informant. Gibbs v.
Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3rd Cir. 1997).
257:76 Filing
fee prepayment requirements applied to prisoner who filed notice of appeal
while incarcerated, but was subsequently released while appeal was pending. Gay
v. Tex. Dept. of Corrections State Jail Div., 117 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 1997). »
Editor's Note: Another federal appeals court reached the same conclusion in
Robbins v. Switzer, 104 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 1997). On the other hand, in McGann
v. Commissioner, 96 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1996), the court found that a released
prisoner "may litigate without further prepayment of fees upon satisfying
the poverty affidavit requirement applicable to all non-prisoners." This
decision was followed by another federal appeals court In Re Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir. 1997).
257:76 Prisoner
was not barred, under the PLRA, from filing a second civil rights lawsuit as a
pauper, even though he had only paid fourteen cents towards $120 filing fee in
prior lawsuit, when he had shown that there was nothing in his inmate fund
account. Walp v. Scott, 115 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 1997).
258:87 Federal
appeals court rules that dismissal of a lawsuit as frivolous, or dismissal of
an appeal as frivolous, will each count as one "strike" against a
prisoner under the "three strikes" rule of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, even if the prisoner paid a full filing fee for the lawsuit or
appeal. Duvall v. Miller, 122 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 1997).
259:104 Federal
appeals court upholds section of Prison Litigation Reform Act barring claims
for damages for mental or emotional injury without a showing of physical
injury; prisoners could not recover damages for their alleged exposure to
asbestos when no physical injury was claimed. Zehner v. Trigg, 133 F.3d 459
(7th Cir. 1997).
[N/R] Provision
of Prison Litigation Reform Act allowing court to dismiss lawsuit by prisoner
determined to be frivolous or malicious applies to cases pending prior to
statute's passage; prisoner's claim that correctional officials
"smashed" his property and legal work in retaliation for his writing
of a letter complaining about the lack of "black culture" churches in
prison state valid First Amendment claim. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483
(11th Cir. 1997).
[N/R] Prison
Litigation Reform Act's filing fee provisions do not violate prisoners' right
of access to the courts. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 1997).
[N/R] Prisoner
who filed appeal after trial court certified that appeal would not be taken in
good faith could still proceed with appeal, but must pay full amount of
appellate filing fee, either in installments or else pay the full amount
"up front" if he has acquired "three strikes" before
through frivolous lawsuits or appeals. Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481 (8th
Cir. 1997).
[N/R] Provision of
Prison Litigation Reform Act requiring full payment of filing fees by prisoners
did not apply retroactively; trial court erred in dismissing lawsuit as
frivolous after accepting partial payment of filing fee without allowing
plaintiff prisoner a chance to cure any defects in his complaint before
dismissal. Church v. Attorney General of Com. of Va., 125 F.3d 210 (4th Cir.
1997).
261:137
Prisoner's federal lawsuit about alleged delay in cataract surgery on his eye
dismissed when he could not show that he pursued all administrative appeals
available to him in the California correctional system. Alexandroai v. Calif.
Dept. of Corrections, 985 F.Supp. 968 (S.D. Cal. 1997).
[N/R] Prisoner's
lawsuit claiming that prison officials retaliated against him after he filed a
lawsuit against another prison official was properly dismissed due to his
failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. White v. McGinnis, 131 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 1997).
[N/R] Prisoner
who filed appeal after trial court certified that appeal would not be taken in
good faith could still proceed with appeal, but must pay full amount of
appellate filing fee, either in installments or else pay the full amount
"up front" if he has acquired "three strikes" before
through frivolous lawsuits or appeals. Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481 (8th
Cir. 1997). 242:23 Federal appeals court rules that Prison Litigation Reform
Act of 1996 applies retroactively to plaintiff prisoner's pending appeal as a
pauper of dismissal of federal civil rights lawsuit as frivolous. Marks v.
Solcum, 98 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 1996).
244:54 Federal
appeals court rules that requirements of Prison Litigation Reform Act that
prisoners pay filing fees applied both to $5 filing fee and $100
"docketing" fee required for appeal; obligation on prisoner to be
imposed prior to determination as to whether or not appeal was frivolous.
Leonard v. Lacy, 88 F.3d 181 (2nd Cir. 1996).
245:71 Prisoner
was not required to comply with fee provisions of Prison Litigation Reform Act
when his appeal was fully submitted for consideration to the appeals court
prior to the Act's effective date. Ramsey v. Coughlin, 94 F.3d 71 (2nd Cir.
1996).
[N/R]
Compensation of special master appointed to oversee implementation of court
orders concerning inadequate medical care of inmates was not subject to
limitations in Prison Litigation Reform Act when master was appointed before
effective date of the law. Coleman v. Wilson, 933 F.Supp. 954 (E.D. Cal. 1996).
238:147 Federal
Prison Litigation Reform Act becomes law, makes numerous changes in prison
litigation, including scope of injunctive orders, standards for termination of
injunctive orders, amount of attorneys' fees, standard for prisoner release orders
in overcrowding cases, prisoner payment of filing fees and court costs, barring
inmates who repetitively file frivolous suits from further filings, no awards
for mental/emotional distress in the absence of physical injury, and revocation
of federal prisoner's good time credits if they file malicious lawsuits or
testify falsely, among other highlights.