Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-803 (2026)
Procedure constitutes administrative remedies available to offenders for purpose of preserving cause of action against state
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) Upon approval of the administrative review procedure by a federal court as authorized and required by the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, and the implementation of the procedure within the department, this procedure shall constitute the administrative remedies available to offenders for the purpose of preserving any cause of action such offenders may claim to have against the State of Mississippi, the Department of Corrections or its officials or employees.
- (2) No state court shall entertain an offender's grievance or complaint which falls under the purview of the administrative review procedure unless and until such offender shall have exhausted the remedies as provided in such procedure. If at the time the petition is filed the administrative review process has not yet been completed, the court shall stay the proceedings for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days to allow for completion of the procedure and exhaustion of the remedies thereunder.
Laws, 1989, ch. 563, § 2, eff. 7/1/1989.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Walker v. State, 35 So. 3d 555 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).
Walker v. State, 35 So. 3d 555 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803. Since there is no indication in the record that Walker exhausted his administrative remedies on these claims, we are without jurisdiction to consider them.”
Guy v. State, 915 So. 2d 508 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. 47-5-803(2) (Rev. 2004). Guy claims that numerous shake-downs within SMCI prevented him from proving that he had sought his remedies within MDOC, but he offers no evidence to support this contention.”
Adams v. Epps, 900 So. 2d 1210 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “The State's argument here is correct because the record shows that Adams never asserted the equal protection/racial discrimination claims through the Administrative Remedy Program, and Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803(2) (Rev.2004) states plainly that a prisoner must exhaust his…”
Putnam v. Epps, 63 So. 3d 547 (Miss. 2011). “Miss.Code Ann. §§ 47-5-803, 47-5-807 (Rev.”
Stanley v. Turner, 846 So. 2d 279 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). “Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803(2) (Rev.2000). This Court originally dealt with Stanley's claim regarding his trusty status on that basis, stating that "[t]here is nothing in the record to show that Stanley took advantage of this corrective measure [an A.”
Dennis Darnell Howard v. State of Mississippi, 171 So. 3d 566 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-803 (Rev. 2011). Howard has not shown that he could not prepare for the hearing from prison.”
Nelson v. Bingham, 116 So. 3d 172 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). “2005) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803(2)). ¶ 8. Here, however, Nelson appeals the decision of the Parole Board, not the MDOC.”
Boone v. State, 148 So. 3d 377 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803(2) (Rev.2011). Further, the trial court found that the sentencing order was clear, as evidenced by Boone’s statement in his motion of the amounts owed and to whom the amounts were due.”
Putnam v. Epps, 963 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). “Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803(2) (Rev.2004). According to that section, the trial court should give Putnam no more than ninety days to exhaust his remedies.”
Clincy v. Atwood, 65 So. 3d 327 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803 (Rev.2004). 13 .”
Johnson v. State, 31 So. 3d 647 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “2006); Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803 (Rev.2004). Therefore, we find the circuit judge properly treated the present petition as a petition for post-conviction relief.”
Sanders v. Mississippi Dept. of Corr., 912 So. 2d 189 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803(2) (Rev.2004). ¶ 10.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-803(1) — 2 cases
Putnam v. Epps, 63 So. 3d 547 (Miss. 2011). “Miss.Code Ann. §§ 47-5-803, 47-5-807 (Rev.”
Charles McLaurin, Jr. v. State of Mississippi, 181 So. 3d 1029 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-803(2) — 14 cases
Guy v. State, 915 So. 2d 508 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. 47-5-803(2) (Rev. 2004). Guy claims that numerous shake-downs within SMCI prevented him from proving that he had sought his remedies within MDOC, but he offers no evidence to support this contention.”
Adams v. Epps, 900 So. 2d 1210 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “The State's argument here is correct because the record shows that Adams never asserted the equal protection/racial discrimination claims through the Administrative Remedy Program, and Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803(2) (Rev.2004) states plainly that a prisoner must exhaust his…”
Walker v. State, 35 So. 3d 555 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803. Since there is no indication in the record that Walker exhausted his administrative remedies on these claims, we are without jurisdiction to consider them.”
Stanley v. Turner, 846 So. 2d 279 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). “Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803(2) (Rev.2000). This Court originally dealt with Stanley's claim regarding his trusty status on that basis, stating that "[t]here is nothing in the record to show that Stanley took advantage of this corrective measure [an A.”
Nelson v. Bingham, 116 So. 3d 172 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). “2005) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-803(2)). ¶ 8. Here, however, Nelson appeals the decision of the Parole Board, not the MDOC.”
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.