Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 6603. Limitations on remedies.
(a) Limitations on remedies for Federal claims.--Prison conditions litigation filed in or remanded to a court of this Commonwealth
alleging in whole or in part a violation of Federal law shall be subject to any limitations
on remedies established by Federal law or Federal courts with respect to the Federal
claims.
(b) Limitations on remedies under Pennsylvania law.--Prison conditions litigation arising in whole or in part due to an allegation of a
violation of Pennsylvania law shall be subject to the limitations set forth in this
act with respect to those claims arising under Pennsylvania law.
(c) Special masters.--In prison conditions litigation arising in whole or in part under Pennsylvania law,
the court shall not appoint a person to assist the court or delegate any judicial
function, including fact-finding, reporting or monitoring, unless the appointment
or delegation is specifically authorized under Pennsylvania court rules. Any court
order appointing a special master shall state the specific duties delegated to the
special master. Any fact-finding by the special master shall be based upon the record.
Notes of Decisions
F. Minor v. Sgt. D. Kraynak, 155 A.3d 114 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “42 Pa. C.S. § 6603. Section 6603(a) of the PLRA provides: “Prison conditions litigation filed in or remanded to a court of this Commonwealth alleging in whole or in part a violation of Federal law shall be subject to any limitations on remedies established by Federal law or…”
Kittrell v. Watson, 88 A.3d 1091 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 6603(a). Federal law precludes assertion of such Section 1983 claims, “of this title .”
Luckett v. Blaine, 850 A.2d 811 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 2× “They contended that the Complaint failed to state a cause of action and that Luckett failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his lawsuit as is required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6603. 6 The trial court sustained these preliminary…”
Richardson v. Beard, 942 A.2d 911 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
“§ 1997e(a), are made applicable to the present litigation by the terms of the Pennsylvania Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6603. Because Section 6603(a) applies only when the prison litigation alleges in whole or in part a violation of federal law, and the amended…”
Bussinger v. Dyne, 76 A.3d 137 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 2× “7 Section 6603 of the Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6603, provides DOC with the right as a defendant to raise any federal limitations or remedies relating to claims brought under federal law.”
C.M. Rodland v. Cnty. of Cambria (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 2× “§ 1997e(a), and Section 6603 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (state PLRA), 42 Pa. C.S. § 6603. Rodland’s appeal to this Court followed.”
D. Cook v. R. Smith (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “§1997e, and section 6603 of the Pennsylvania Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §6603, a prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before he can pursue a civil action in court.”
T. Washington v. The PA DOC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025).
· cites it 2× “See 42 Pa. C.S. §6603(a).6 Washington filed a grievance to challenge the deduction rate of 25%, but it was rejected because it was not submitted within 15 days of the event upon which his claim was based.”
Morris v. Meyers, 6 Pa. D. & C.5th 92 (2008).
· cites it 2× ““Prison conditions litigation arising in whole or in part due to an allegation of a violation of Pennsylvania law shall be subject to the limitations set forth in this act with respect to those claims arising under Pennsylvania law.”
J.D. Turner v. Sgt. Knight (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 6603(a). The federal Prison Litigation Reform Act states that exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory when federal claims are asserted.”
T.X. Wright v. K. Hauffman (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
“42 Pa. C.S. §6603(a) (emphasis added). The exhaustion doctrine allows a prison to address complaints about the program it administers before being subjected to suit, thereby “reducing litigation to the extent complaints are satisfactorily resolved, and improving litigation that…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6603(a) — 12 cases
F. Minor v. Sgt. D. Kraynak, 155 A.3d 114 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
“42 Pa. C.S. § 6603. Section 6603(a) of the PLRA provides: “Prison conditions litigation filed in or remanded to a court of this Commonwealth alleging in whole or in part a violation of Federal law shall be subject to any limitations on remedies established by Federal law or…”
Kittrell v. Watson, 88 A.3d 1091 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 6603(a). Federal law precludes assertion of such Section 1983 claims, “of this title .”
T. Washington v. The PA DOC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025).
“See 42 Pa. C.S. §6603(a).6 Washington filed a grievance to challenge the deduction rate of 25%, but it was rejected because it was not submitted within 15 days of the event upon which his claim was based.”
C.M. Rodland v. Cnty. of Cambria (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
“§ 1997e(a), and Section 6603 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (state PLRA), 42 Pa. C.S. § 6603. Rodland’s appeal to this Court followed.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6603(b) — 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.