exhaustion of administrative remedies -- Dismissal of action and assessment of
costs -- Period of limitations.
(1) No action shall be brought by or on behalf of an inmate, with respect to:
(a) An inmate disciplinary proceeding;
(b) Challenges to a sentence calculation;
(c) Challenges to custody credit; or
(d) A conditions-of-confinement issue;
until administrative remedies as set forth in the policies and procedures of the
Department of Corrections, county jail, or other local or regional correctional
facility are exhausted.
(2) Administrative remedies shall be exhausted even if the remedy the inmate seeks is
unavailable.
(3) The inmate shall attach to any complaint filed documents verifying that
administrative remedies have been exhausted.
(4) A court shall dismiss a civil action brought by an inmate for any of the reasons set
out in subsection (1) of this section if the inmate has not exhausted administrative
remedies, and may include as part of its order an assessment of court costs against
the inmate as the court may deem reasonable and prudent. The correctional facility
may enforce this assessment against the inmate's canteen account and against any
other assets of the inmate through any other mechanism provided by law.
(5) A court which dismisses a civil action brought by an inmate for the reasons set out
in this section shall include as part of its order specific findings as to the reasons for
the dismissal. The court shall, upon issuing the order, direct the circuit clerk to
transmit a copy of the entire court order to the official having custody of the inmate,
to all persons named as a party defendant in the action, and also, by certified mail,
return receipt requested, to the inmate.
(6) The period of limitations applicable to the cause of action after it has been
dismissed by a court under this section for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies is the period fixed by the applicable statute or ninety (90) days following
the exhaustion of administrative remedies if the grievance is filed within the
applicable period of limitations, whichever is later. Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to revive a cause of action that is barred by the applicable period of
limitations.
Effective: July 15, 2010
History: Amended 2010 Ky. Acts ch. 46, sec. 3, effective July 15, 2010. -- Amended
2006 Ky. Acts ch. 118, sec. 1, effective July 12, 2006. -- Amended 2002 Ky. Acts ch.
11, sec. 2, effective July 15, 2002. -- Created 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 118, sec. 5, effective
July 15, 1996.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
53
cases (
38 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
Lee v. Haney
Lee v. Haney, 517 S.W.3d 500 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Dismissal of an inmate’s civil action, such as a declaration of rights petition, is the appropriate course when an inmate fails to adequately exhaust his or her administrative remedies.”
Houston v. Fletcher, 193 S.W.3d 276 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “KRS 454.415 states in pertinent part as follows: (l)(a) No action shall be brought by an inmate, with respect to a prison disciplinary proceeding or challenges to a sentence calculation or challenges to custody credit, until administrative remedies as set forth in Department of…”
Thrasher v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.3d 132 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “The circuit court entered an order dismissing his petition for failure to comply with KRS 454.415. This appeal by Thrasher followed.”
Bard v. Commonwealth, 359 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2011).
“18 But because the judgment did not specifically do so and did not incorporate the calculation into the judgment, there is nothing in the judgment to correct.”
Hensley v. Commonwealth, 355 S.W.3d 473 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “KRS 454.415 sets forth proper procedure for inmates who raise sentence calculation questions.”
Edwards v. Van De Rostyne, 245 S.W.3d 797 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Section 5 was enacted as KRS 454.415 requiring inmates to exhaust all applicable and available administrative remedies before filing any civil or criminal action.”
Tyler v. Taylor, 128 S.W.3d 495 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
“And see KRS 454.415 (requiring exhaustion of prison remedies with respect to certain claims).”
White v. Boards-Bey, 426 S.W.3d 569 (Ky. 2014).
“Jurisdiction As a threshold matter, Appellants argue that Boards-Bey failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing forth his Petition for Declaration of Rights as required by KRS 454.415. Appellants failed to bring this argument before the trial court or the…”
Lester v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't (W.D. Ky. 2020).
· cites it 18× “As such, all of his claims must be dismissed pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and KRS 454.415.” [DE 10-1 at 76]. Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that “plaintiffs are not required to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 action” and, even if they…”
James Mallory v. Cookie Crews, Comm'r Doc (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 15× “When examining Appellant’s action in light of KRS 454.415, the Franklin Circuit Court determined that it raised “conditions-of-confinement” issues.”
Taynandree Reed v. Vesna Mandic, Unknown Title (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 12× “02(f) and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to KRS 454.415. Therein, Corrections argued that the “threshold issue of the requirement that inmates exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing 3 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Scales v. Kentucky State Reformatory (W.D. Ky. 2021).
· cites it 9× “92] Magistrate Judge Lindsay found that Plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust his remedies as to both the federal and state claims pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and Ky. Rev. Stat. § 454.415, per the grievance process at KSR as outlined in Kentucky…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 454.415(1) — 14 cases
Lee v. Haney, 517 S.W.3d 500 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
“Dismissal of an inmate’s civil action, such as a declaration of rights petition, is the appropriate course when an inmate fails to adequately exhaust his or her administrative remedies.”
Houston v. Fletcher, 193 S.W.3d 276 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006).
“KRS 454.415 states in pertinent part as follows: (l)(a) No action shall be brought by an inmate, with respect to a prison disciplinary proceeding or challenges to a sentence calculation or challenges to custody credit, until administrative remedies as set forth in Department of…”
James Mallory v. Cookie Crews, Comm'r Doc (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“When examining Appellant’s action in light of KRS 454.415, the Franklin Circuit Court determined that it raised “conditions-of-confinement” issues.”
Lester v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't (W.D. Ky. 2020).
“As such, all of his claims must be dismissed pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and KRS 454.415.” [DE 10-1 at 76]. Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that “plaintiffs are not required to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 action” and, even if they…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 454.415(1)(a) — 2 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 454.415(1)(d) — 6 cases
Taynandree Reed v. Vesna Mandic, Unknown Title (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).
“02(f) and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to KRS 454.415. Therein, Corrections argued that the “threshold issue of the requirement that inmates exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing 3 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 454.415(2) — 5 cases
Taynandree Reed v. Vesna Mandic, Unknown Title (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).
“02(f) and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to KRS 454.415. Therein, Corrections argued that the “threshold issue of the requirement that inmates exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing 3 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 454.415(3) — 16 cases
James Mallory v. Cookie Crews, Comm'r Doc (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“When examining Appellant’s action in light of KRS 454.415, the Franklin Circuit Court determined that it raised “conditions-of-confinement” issues.”
Taynandree Reed v. Vesna Mandic, Unknown Title (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).
“02(f) and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to KRS 454.415. Therein, Corrections argued that the “threshold issue of the requirement that inmates exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing 3 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 454.415(4) — 11 cases
Lee v. Haney, 517 S.W.3d 500 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
“Dismissal of an inmate’s civil action, such as a declaration of rights petition, is the appropriate course when an inmate fails to adequately exhaust his or her administrative remedies.”
Thrasher v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.3d 132 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
“The circuit court entered an order dismissing his petition for failure to comply with KRS 454.415. This appeal by Thrasher followed.”
James Mallory v. Cookie Crews, Comm'r Doc (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“When examining Appellant’s action in light of KRS 454.415, the Franklin Circuit Court determined that it raised “conditions-of-confinement” issues.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 454.415(5) — 1 case
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.