24:
368:
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.
522:
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
508:
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
341:
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
380:
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
345:
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
367:
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
354:
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
371:
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
498:
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'
405:
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.
326:(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.
385:
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
329:
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
418:
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.
306:
286:
266:
246:
226:
203:
184:
165:
146:
127:
108:
89:
610:
615:
360:
103:
605:
277:
84:
346:
necessary to correct the violation of the
Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right."
509:
of a prison conditions case typically takes, the act requires courts to rule " promptly" on motions to terminate prospective relief, with
364:, 530 U.S. 327 (2000), inmates attacked the constitutionality of the "automatic stay" provision as a violation of separation of powers.
600:
372:
overall, and of the "automatic stay" in particular, is still undetermined, but the Court seems disposed to a measure of acceptance.
523:
requires of it, but that period will be for an extended time because of the complexities of the trial that must be conducted.
67:
473:
331:
469:
457:
466:
297:
310:
290:
270:
250:
230:
207:
188:
169:
150:
131:
112:
93:
23:
302:
282:
222:
217:
262:
242:
8:
210:
191:
153:
134:
115:
96:
172:
237:
141:
122:
567:
Shivers v. United States, Case No. 10-14336, (Unpublished
Opinion, 11th Cir. 2011)
489:
P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (2006); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (1994 ed. & Supp. II).
160:
436:
428:
198:
594:
398:
257:
179:
56:
477:
335:
342:
judges, as the injunctions often required expensive remedial actions.
381:
grievance and/or appeal procedures their prison custodians provide:
510:
414:
Some federal courts issue orders that certain prisoners and other
31:
585:
Miller V. Donald, 541 F. 3d, 1091, 1096-97 (11th Cir. 2008)
396:
That requirement was the subject of a
Supreme Court case,
576:
Procup V. Strickland, 792 F. 2d, 1069 (11th Cir. 1986)
349:
458:
592:
549:Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327,341-50 (2000)
611:United States federal judiciary legislation
355:ending when the court rules on the motion.
616:United States federal criminal legislation
558:Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327,350 (2000)
375:
606:Acts of the 104th United States Congress
593:
513:available to remedy failure to do so.
17:Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
499:exhaustion provision, § 1997e(a).")
13:
463:Tooltip Public Law (United States)
14:
627:
601:Penal system in the United States
22:
579:
570:
534:Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.
561:
552:
543:
526:
516:
502:
492:
483:
450:
409:
1:
444:
332:cruel and unusual punishment
324:Prison Litigation Reform Act
7:
421:
68:United States Supreme Court
10:
632:
74:
66:
48:
43:
30:
21:
350:"Automatic stay" section
536:, 514 U.S. 211 (1995);
538:United States v. Klein
394:
376:Exhaustion requirement
298:Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
383:
540:,80 U.S. 128 (1872).
391:42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
218:Coleman v. Tollefson
44:Legislative history
18:
16:
320:
319:
623:
586:
583:
577:
574:
568:
565:
559:
556:
550:
547:
541:
530:
524:
520:
514:
506:
500:
496:
490:
487:
481:
464:
460:
454:
392:
361:Miller v. French
334:or the right to
238:Bruce v. Samuels
142:Porter v. Nussle
123:Booth v. Churner
104:Miller v. French
36:
26:
19:
15:
631:
630:
626:
625:
624:
622:
621:
620:
591:
590:
589:
584:
580:
575:
571:
566:
562:
557:
553:
548:
544:
531:
527:
521:
517:
507:
503:
497:
493:
488:
484:
462:
455:
451:
447:
424:
412:
393:
390:
378:
352:
316:
278:Murphy v. Smith
161:Woodford v. Ngo
85:Martin v. Hadix
80:
79:
62:
53:Signed into law
34:
12:
11:
5:
629:
619:
618:
613:
608:
603:
588:
587:
578:
569:
560:
551:
542:
525:
515:
501:
491:
482:
467:104–134 (text)
456:Title VIII of
448:
446:
443:
442:
441:
437:U.S. v. Booker
433:
429:Brown v. Plata
423:
420:
411:
408:
388:
377:
374:
351:
348:
318:
317:
315:
314:
313:___ (2020)
294:
293:___ (2018)
274:
273:___ (2016)
254:
253:___ (2016)
234:
233:___ (2015)
214:
199:Brown v. Plata
195:
176:
157:
138:
119:
100:
77:
76:
75:
72:
71:
64:
63:
61:
60:
49:
46:
45:
41:
40:
37:
28:
27:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
628:
617:
614:
612:
609:
607:
604:
602:
599:
598:
596:
582:
573:
564:
555:
546:
539:
535:
529:
519:
512:
505:
495:
486:
479:
475:
471:
468:
461:
453:
449:
439:
438:
434:
431:
430:
426:
425:
419:
417:
407:
403:
401:
400:
399:Jones v. Bock
387:
382:
373:
369:
365:
363:
362:
356:
347:
343:
339:
337:
333:
327:
325:
312:
308:
304:
300:
299:
295:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:
275:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:
258:Ross v. Blake
255:
252:
248:
244:
240:
239:
235:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
215:
212:
209:
205:
201:
200:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
181:
180:Jones v. Bock
177:
174:
171:
167:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
144:
143:
139:
136:
133:
129:
125:
124:
120:
117:
114:
110:
106:
105:
101:
98:
95:
91:
87:
86:
82:
81:
73:
69:
65:
58:
55:by President
54:
51:
50:
47:
42:
38:
33:
29:
25:
20:
581:
572:
563:
554:
545:
537:
533:
528:
518:
504:
494:
485:
452:
435:
427:
415:
413:
404:
397:
395:
384:
379:
370:
366:
359:
357:
353:
344:
340:
328:
323:
321:
296:
276:
256:
236:
216:
197:
178:
159:
140:
121:
102:
83:
57:Bill Clinton
52:
35:(colloquial)
472:, 110
410:Injunctions
336:due process
213: (2011)
194: (2007)
175: (2006)
156: (2002)
137: (2001)
118: (2000)
99: (1999)
595:Categories
445:References
386:exhausted.
511:mandamus
422:See also
389:—
32:Acronyms
459:Pub. L.
303:18-8369
283:16-1067
223:13-1333
476:
465:
440:(2005)
432:(2011)
416:pro se
305:,
301:, No.
285:,
281:, No.
265:,
263:15-339
261:, No.
245:,
243:14-844
241:, No.
225:,
221:, No.
474:Stat.
470:(PDF)
309:
289:
269:
249:
229:
206:
187:
168:
149:
130:
111:
92:
70:cases
532:See
478:1321
322:The
311:U.S.
291:U.S.
271:U.S.
251:U.S.
231:U.S.
208:U.S.
189:U.S.
170:U.S.
151:U.S.
132:U.S.
113:U.S.
94:U.S.
78:List
39:PLRA
358:In
338:).
307:590
287:583
267:578
247:577
227:575
211:493
204:563
192:199
185:549
166:548
154:516
147:534
135:731
128:532
116:327
109:530
97:343
90:527
597::
402:.
202:,
183:,
173:81
164:,
145:,
126:,
107:,
88:,
59:on
480:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.svg)