Supreme Court Decision Overturns Draconian Limitations on Prisoner Litigation Imposed by the Sixth Circuit (1/22/2007)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: media@aclu.org
Today the Supreme Court Unanimously Overturned a Sixth Circuit Decision that
Barred Most Prisoners from Asserting their Constitutional Rights
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union today welcomed a unanimous
Supreme Court decision striking down a series of barriers to prisoner litigation
imposed by the Sixth Circuit. Today’s decision in Jones v. Bock
overturned the strict requirements imposed by the Sixth Circuit in the provision
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) that mandates that prisoners
“exhaust” administrative remedies.
“This was a critical decision for prisoners whose rights have been violated,”
said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National Prison Project, which
filed a friend of the court brief in the case that was cited in today’s
ruling. “The Sixth Circuit rules were so draconian that they barred almost
all claims from prisoners without counsel.”
The PLRA, a law passed in 1996 and claimed to be directed at frivolous
lawsuits filed by prisoners, requires a prisoner to complete an internal prison
grievance process before filing a lawsuit in federal court. In the Jones
v. Bock decision by the Sixth Circuit, additional restrictions were imposed that
required prisoners to:
- Name all defendants in their grievances in order to file a lawsuit against
them. If prisoners failed to do so, they could not sue the persons not
mentioned in their grievances.
- Prove that they exhausted all administrative
remedies through the grievance process before filing a lawsuit in federal
court.
- Exhaust all remedies on every issue in the lawsuit. Prisoners
who failed to exhaust on one of several issues raised in the suit would have
their entire cases dismissed.
Today’s Supreme Court ruling overturned those requirements, stating that they
go too far. In the decision, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Sixth
Circuit's exhaustion rules are not required by the PLRA and that “imposing them
exceeds the proper limits on the judicial role." The Court unanimously
agreed that if a prisoner fails to exhaust administrative remedies on some of
his grievances, but not all, then only those parts that had not been addressed
should be dismissed. The Court also agreed that prisoner lawsuits should
not be thrown out simply because the prisoner had failed to show exhaustion in
the court filing. Finally, the Court stated that a prisoner does not have
to list all defendants in the grievance process in order to sue them in federal
court. The decision cited the friend-of-the-court brief filed by the ACLU,
which pointed out that most prison grievance procedures do not require prisoners
to identify specific individuals.
“The PLRA severely limits prisoners’ access to federal courts. Today’s
decision will at least help to ensure that the courthouse door is not completely
shut for prisoners who have been denied basic rights and have nowhere else to
turn,” said Steven Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU.
The Jones v. Bock decision is online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2006term/ jonesv.bockwilliamsv.overton/28105lgl20070122.html
The ACLU’s brief in the case is online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2006term/26789res20060919/26789res20060919. html
|