O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996.”
History
Code 1981, § 42-12-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 400, § 1.
Annotations
Law reviews. For review of 1996 prison litigation re-
form legislation, see 13 Ga. U. L. Rev. 280 (1996). For article, “You’re Out!: Three Strikes Against the PLRA’s Three Strikes Rule,” see 57 Ga. L. Rev. 779 (2023).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Previously dismissed federal lawsuits not counted under three strikes provision. - Trial court erred in ruling that an inmate’s previously dismissed federal lawsuits counted as strikes under the three strikes provision of the Georgia Prison Litigation Reform Act, O.C.G.A. § 42-12-7.2, because lawsuits in federal district court did not qualify as strikes under the statute since the statute unambiguously included only courts created by the constitution and laws of Georgia. Wright v. Brown, 336 Ga. App. 1, 783 S.E.2d 405, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 112 (2016). Blanket declaration forbidden. - Constitution forbids courts to abridge inmates’ rights to have meaningful access to and communications with the courts, and
a blanket declaration that all filings would be “null and void by operation of law” was impermissible. Hooper v. Harris, 236 Ga. App. 651, 512 S.E.2d 312. Failure to conduct hearing on prisoner’s pauper’s affidavit error. - Trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing on a prisoner’s claim of indigence as the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 9-15-2(b) required a hearing before the court could order costs to be paid and there was nothing in the statute that allowed the court, on the court’s own, to inquire into the truth of a pauper’s affidavit to order the payment of court costs without a hearing. Lee v. Batchelor, 345 Ga. App. 559, 814 S.E.2d 416, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 233 (2018).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Attorney’s fees awards under § 803(d) of Prison Litigation Reform Act (42 U.S.C.A § 1997e(d)), 165 A.L.R. Fed. 551.
Validity, construction, and application of State Prison Litigation Reform Acts, 85 A.L.R.6th 229.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
131
cases (
15 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case:
Wright v. Brown Et Al., 783 S.E.2d 405 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
Wright v. Brown Et Al., 783 S.E.2d 405 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “On appeal, Wright contends, inter alia, that the court erred in ruling that his previously dismissed federal lawsuits count as strikes under the 1 See OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. Georgia PLRA. We agree and, therefore, reverse the court’s ruling and remand the case for further…”
Owens Et Al. v. Hill, 758 S.E.2d 794 (Ga. 2014).
· cites it 4× “5 production of a sample of the actual compounded pentobarbital to be used in his execution? (4) Did the Superior Court of Fulton County err by granting a stay of Hill’s execution based on his challenge to the constitutionality of OCGA § 42-5-36 (d)? For the reasons set forth…”
Jones v. Townsend, 480 S.E.2d 24 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Act of 1996, OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. Expressing concern about the rising cost of litigation and the burden on the judicial system created by prisoners conducting civil litigation as a “recreational exercise,” the General Assembly enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act during…”
In the Interest of K. W., 503 S.E.2d 394 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “`[a]ction' means any civil lawsuit, action, or proceeding, including an appeal, filed by a prisoner ...." (Emphasis supplied.”
Murphy v. Murphy, 761 S.E.2d 53 (Ga. 2014).
· cites it 2× “494 ( 491 SE2d 365 ) (1997), this Court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq., specifically OCGA § 42-12-8, which requires that appeals in all prisoner suits proceed by application for discretionary appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35.”
Coles v. State, 477 S.E.2d 897 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “A prisoner is any person 17 years of age or older who has been convicted of a crime and is currently incarcerated or is being held in custody awaiting trial or sentencing.”
Smith v. Nichols, 512 S.E.2d 279 (Ga. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Appellant’s status as a prisoner raises the possibility that OCGA § 42-12-8, the statute which sets forth appellate procedural requirements under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. (PLRA), mandates that appellant seek discretionary, rather than direct,…”
Harris v. State, 606 S.E.2d 248 (Ga. 2004).
· cites it 2× “The fact that Harris is a prisoner invokes OCGA § 42-12-8, the statute which sets forth appellate procedural requirements under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. Smith v. Nichols at 551 (1).”
Hooper v. Harris, 512 S.E.2d 312 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Our legislature has also addressed this problem and has enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, OCGA § 42-12-1 through § 42-12-9, in response.”
Toenniges v. Steed, 739 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Because the record shows that Toenniges was a prisoner when he filed this civil action, however, he has no right to a direct appeal, and therefore this court has no jurisdiction to hear it.”
Day v. Stokes, 491 S.E.2d 365 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 2× “The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq., has an effective date of April 2,1996.”
In Re Bas, 563 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “[10] OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. [11] See OCGA § 42-12-8 (requiring that "[a]ppeals of all actions filed by prisoners" must proceed pursuant to the discretionary appeal procedure contained in OCGA § 5-6-35); In the Interest of K.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.