35:
379:
prevent
Congress from changing applicable law and then imposing the consequences of the court's application of the new legal standard. Finally, the Court held that the stay provision did not interfere with core judicial functions, as it could not be determined whether the time limitations interfered with judicial functions by its relative brevity.
533:
18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2). Thus, the statute expressly provided for the suspension of existing prospective relief starting 30 days (or 90 days) from the filing of a motion to terminate the prospective relief. That suspension continues only until the court conducts a trial and makes the findings the act
519:
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Under PLRA, the same criteria apply to existing injunctions, whether entered after trial or through approval of a consent decree. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). To ensure that an injunction granting prospective relief does not remain in effect for the months or years that a trial
352:
Many of the injunctions came as a result of consent decrees entered into between inmates and prison officials and endorsed by federal courts so relief was not necessarily tied to violations found. Many state officials and members of
Congress had complained of the breadth of relief granted by federal
391:
Another way
Congress tried to curb prison litigation was by setting up an "exhaustion" requirement. Before prisoners may challenge a condition of their confinement in federal court, the PLRA requires them first to exhaust available administrative remedies by pursuing to completion whichever inmate
356:
The PLRA was designed to curb the discretion of the federal courts in those types of actions. Thus, the central requirement of the act was a provision that a court "shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than
378:
The
Supreme Court reversed, 5–4, and held that the PLRA did not set aside a final judgment of a federal court. Rather, it operated to change the underlying law and so required the altering of the prospective relief issued under the old law. Also, the Court noted that separation of powers did not
365:
The most pointed provision of the PLRA in this context is the so-called "automatic stay" section, which states that a motion to terminate prospective relief "shall operate as a stay" of that relief starting 30 days after the filing of the motion (extendable to up to 90 days for "good cause") and
382:
On the other hand, if the time limits interfered with the inmates' meaningful opportunity to be heard, that would be a due process problem. Since the decision below had been based on separation of powers, the due process argument was not before the Court. Thus, the constitutionality of the PLRA
509:
Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006) (Congress enacted the PLRA in 1996 in response to a significant increase in prisoner litigation in the federal court. To accomplish that goal, Congress included a "variety of provisions" in the PLRA, a "centerpiece" of which "is an 'onvigorated'
416:
The exhaustion requirement has been widely criticized as imposing an inequitable burden on prisoners. Exhaustion must be in accordance with the administrative remedies procedure applicable to the facility in which a prisoner is confined. The procedures vary by state law and facility policy.
337:(PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, is a U.S. federal law that was enacted in 1996. Congress enacted PLRA in response to a significant increase in prisoner litigation in the federal courts; the PLRA was designed to decrease the incidence of litigation within the court system.
396:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other
Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are
340:
For the preceding 20 to 30 years, many US prisons and jails had been enjoined to make certain changes based on findings that the conditions of the institutions violated the constitutional rights of inmates (in particular, freedom from
429:
litigants cannot represent themselves in federal court. However, in 2011, the 11th
Circuit ruled that prisoners are free to file any post-conviction claims through counselor by paying filing fees.
317:
297:
277:
257:
237:
214:
195:
176:
157:
138:
119:
100:
621:
626:
616:
611:
357:
necessary to correct the violation of the
Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right."
520:
of a prison conditions case typically takes, the act requires courts to rule " promptly" on motions to terminate prospective relief, with
375:, 530 U.S. 327 (2000), inmates attacked the constitutionality of the "automatic stay" provision as a violation of separation of powers.
78:
383:
overall, and of the "automatic stay" in particular, is still undetermined, but the Court seems disposed to a measure of acceptance.
484:
534:
requires of it, but that period will be for an extended time because of the complexities of the trial that must be conducted.
342:
468:
34:
480:
308:
321:
301:
281:
261:
241:
218:
199:
180:
161:
142:
123:
104:
371:
114:
288:
228:
95:
17:
477:
248:
152:
133:
313:
293:
233:
273:
253:
171:
447:
439:
221:
209:
202:
164:
145:
126:
107:
183:
605:
409:
268:
190:
67:
578:
Shivers v. United States, Case No. 10-14336, (Unpublished
Opinion, 11th Cir. 2011)
500:
P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (2006); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (1994 ed. & Supp. II).
346:
521:
488:
42:
353:
judges, as the injunctions often required expensive remedial actions.
392:
grievance and/or appeal procedures their prison custodians provide:
425:
Some federal courts issue orders that certain prisoners and other
596:
Miller V. Donald, 541 F. 3d, 1091, 1096-97 (11th Cir. 2008)
407:
That requirement was the subject of a
Supreme Court case,
587:
Procup V. Strickland, 792 F. 2d, 1069 (11th Cir. 1986)
77:
54:
41:
469:
394:
8:
560:Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327,341-50 (2000)
27:
622:United States federal judiciary legislation
366:ending when the court rules on the motion.
627:United States federal criminal legislation
569:Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327,350 (2000)
617:Acts of the 104th United States Congress
460:
92:
26:
524:available to remedy failure to do so.
7:
28:Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
18:Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
510:exhaustion provision, § 1997e(a).")
474:Tooltip Public Law (United States)
25:
612:Penal system in the United States
33:
545:Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.
1:
343:cruel and unusual punishment
335:Prison Litigation Reform Act
79:United States Supreme Court
643:
85:
59:
32:
361:"Automatic stay" section
547:, 514 U.S. 211 (1995);
549:United States v. Klein
405:
387:Exhaustion requirement
309:Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
551:,80 U.S. 128 (1872).
402:42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
229:Coleman v. Tollefson
55:Legislative history
29:
331:
330:
16:(Redirected from
634:
597:
594:
588:
585:
579:
576:
570:
567:
561:
558:
552:
541:
535:
531:
525:
517:
511:
507:
501:
498:
492:
475:
471:
465:
403:
372:Miller v. French
345:or the right to
249:Bruce v. Samuels
153:Porter v. Nussle
134:Booth v. Churner
115:Miller v. French
47:
37:
30:
21:
642:
641:
637:
636:
635:
633:
632:
631:
602:
601:
600:
595:
591:
586:
582:
577:
573:
568:
564:
559:
555:
542:
538:
532:
528:
518:
514:
508:
504:
499:
495:
473:
466:
462:
458:
435:
423:
404:
401:
389:
363:
327:
289:Murphy v. Smith
172:Woodford v. Ngo
96:Martin v. Hadix
91:
90:
73:
64:Signed into law
45:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
640:
638:
630:
629:
624:
619:
614:
604:
603:
599:
598:
589:
580:
571:
562:
553:
536:
526:
512:
502:
493:
478:104–134 (text)
467:Title VIII of
459:
457:
454:
453:
452:
448:U.S. v. Booker
444:
440:Brown v. Plata
434:
431:
422:
419:
399:
388:
385:
362:
359:
329:
328:
326:
325:
324:___ (2020)
305:
304:___ (2018)
285:
284:___ (2016)
265:
264:___ (2016)
245:
244:___ (2015)
225:
210:Brown v. Plata
206:
187:
168:
149:
130:
111:
88:
87:
86:
83:
82:
75:
74:
72:
71:
60:
57:
56:
52:
51:
48:
39:
38:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
639:
628:
625:
623:
620:
618:
615:
613:
610:
609:
607:
593:
590:
584:
581:
575:
572:
566:
563:
557:
554:
550:
546:
540:
537:
530:
527:
523:
516:
513:
506:
503:
497:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
472:
464:
461:
455:
450:
449:
445:
442:
441:
437:
436:
432:
430:
428:
420:
418:
414:
412:
411:
410:Jones v. Bock
398:
393:
386:
384:
380:
376:
374:
373:
367:
360:
358:
354:
350:
348:
344:
338:
336:
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:
306:
303:
299:
295:
291:
290:
286:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:
269:Ross v. Blake
266:
263:
259:
255:
251:
250:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
211:
207:
204:
201:
197:
193:
192:
191:Jones v. Bock
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
154:
150:
147:
144:
140:
136:
135:
131:
128:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
98:
97:
93:
84:
80:
76:
69:
66:by President
65:
62:
61:
58:
53:
49:
44:
40:
36:
31:
19:
592:
583:
574:
565:
556:
548:
544:
539:
529:
515:
505:
496:
463:
446:
438:
426:
424:
415:
408:
406:
395:
390:
381:
377:
370:
368:
364:
355:
351:
339:
334:
332:
307:
287:
267:
247:
227:
208:
189:
170:
151:
132:
113:
94:
68:Bill Clinton
63:
46:(colloquial)
483:, 110
421:Injunctions
347:due process
224: (2011)
205: (2007)
186: (2006)
167: (2002)
148: (2001)
129: (2000)
110: (1999)
606:Categories
456:References
397:exhausted.
522:mandamus
433:See also
400:—
43:Acronyms
470:Pub. L.
314:18-8369
294:16-1067
234:13-1333
487:
476:
451:(2005)
443:(2011)
427:pro se
316:,
312:, No.
296:,
292:, No.
276:,
274:15-339
272:, No.
256:,
254:14-844
252:, No.
236:,
232:, No.
485:Stat.
481:(PDF)
320:
300:
280:
260:
240:
217:
198:
179:
160:
141:
122:
103:
81:cases
543:See
489:1321
333:The
322:U.S.
302:U.S.
282:U.S.
262:U.S.
242:U.S.
219:U.S.
200:U.S.
181:U.S.
162:U.S.
143:U.S.
124:U.S.
105:U.S.
89:List
50:PLRA
369:In
349:).
318:590
298:583
278:578
258:577
238:575
222:493
215:563
203:199
196:549
177:548
165:516
158:534
146:731
139:532
127:327
120:530
108:343
101:527
608::
413:.
213:,
194:,
184:81
175:,
156:,
137:,
118:,
99:,
70:on
491:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
