42 U.S.C. § 1997
Definitions
The Social Security Act, referred to in par. (2)(B), (C), is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620. Titles XVI, XVIII, and XIX of the Social Security Act are classified generally to subchapters XVI (§ 1381 et seq.), XVIII (§ 1395 et seq.), and XIX (§ 1396 et seq.) of chapter 7 of this title, respectively. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of this title and Tables.
Pub. L. 96–247, § 1,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 748
cases (282 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496 (1982).
Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496 (1982). “B The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1997 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp.”
Daniel v. Cook Cnty., 833 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2016). “The Department of Justice conducted its investigation in accordance with its authority under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 . It prepared the report based on extensive visits to the Jail, in collaboration “with consultants in the fields of…”
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981). “349, 42 U. S. C. § 1997 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp.”
George Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2019). “Obaisi and Wexford’s motion for summary judgment after concluding: (1) the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement barred Walker’s claims, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (e); (2) Dr. Obaisi was not working at the prison during the relevant time when Walker wished to be sent back…”
Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2007). “Having reached that general conclusion, however, it bears pointing out that a prisoner plaintiff’s right to monetary relief is severely circumscribed by the terms of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (e). The PLRA provides that a prisoner may not…”
Randle Griffin v. Mary Berghuis, 563 F. App'x 411 (6th Cir. 2014). “It would have been protected by the First Amendment and the Eighth Amendment, as well as his grievance rights under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 . I would not shut off the prisoner’s right to his day in court by summary judgment when there is a clear…”
Norelus v. Denny's, Inc., 628 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2010). “2003) (holding "that fees-on-fees are recoverable under" The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (e)(d)(1)(A)); Jean v. Nelson, 863 F.”
Gregory Ricks v. D. Shover, 891 F.3d 468 (3rd Cir. 2018). “" 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (e). And "sexual act" as defined explicitly excludes touching that is unintentional or "through the clothing.”
Roberts v. Barreras, 484 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2007). “In sum, for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, the burden lies with the plaintiff; for administrative exhaustion under 42 U.S.C. § 1997 , the burden lies with the defendants.”
Marie Hicks-Fields v. Christopher Pool, 860 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 2017). “2016); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1997 . 20 . Daniel, 833 F.3d at 741 .”
Johnson v. State of FL, 348 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003). “In June 1996, the Justice Department moved to intervene in the case on the Plaintiffs’ side under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq. (“CRIPA”). CRIPA empowers the Attorney General to bring or join litigation seeking injunctive relief on…”
Kellogg v. Nebraska Dep't of Corr. Servs., 690 N.W.2d 574 (Neb. 2005). “” Finally, Kellogg alleges that he “has exhausted available administrative remedies pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C.A. §§1997 (e) [sic].” For relief, Kellogg seeks, inter alia, a temporary restraining order, injunctive and declaratory relief, restoration of good time, restoration of…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) — 3 cases
Victorian v. Stalder, 770 So. 2d 382 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
Luna v. Gentry (W.D. Ark. 2023).
(PC) Freeman v. Lynch (E.D. Cal. 2019).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(2) — 1 case
Scott v. United States (N.D.W. Va. 2019).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a) — 8 cases
Johnson v. Kahl (C.D. Ill. 2021).
Rush v. Kahl (C.D. Ill. 2021).
Patrick v. Kahl (C.D. Ill. 2021).
Gordon v. Vercellino (C.D. Ill. 2021).
Knell v. Brown (C.D. Ill. 2020).
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.