U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 21— CIVIL RIGHTS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I–A— INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS

42 U.S.C. § 1997e

Suits by prisoners

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Applicability of administrative remedies

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.

(b) Failure of State to adopt or adhere to administrative grievance procedure

The failure of a State to adopt or adhere to an administrative grievance procedure shall not constitute the basis for an action under section 1997a or 1997c of this title.

(c) Dismissal(1) The court shall on its own motion or on the motion of a party dismiss any action brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility if the court is satisfied that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.(2) In the event that a claim is, on its face, frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, the court may dismiss the underlying claim without first requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies.(d) Attorney’s fees(1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, in which attorney’s fees are authorized under section 1988 11 See References in Text note below. of this title, such fees shall not be awarded, except to the extent that—(A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded under section 1988 1 of this title; and(B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation; or(ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation.(2) Whenever a monetary judgment is awarded in an action described in paragraph (1), a portion of the judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant. If the award of attorney’s fees is not greater than 150 percent of the judgment, the excess shall be paid by the defendant.(3) No award of attorney’s fees in an action described in paragraph (1) shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of title 18 for payment of court-appointed counsel.(4) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a prisoner from entering into an agreement to pay an attorney’s fee in an amount greater than the amount authorized under this subsection, if the fee is paid by the individual rather than by the defendant pursuant to section 1988 1 of this title.(e) Limitation on recovery

No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act (as defined in section 2246 of title 18).

(f) Hearings(1) To the extent practicable, in any action brought with respect to prison conditions in Federal court pursuant to section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, pretrial proceedings in which the prisoner’s participation is required or permitted shall be conducted by telephone, video conference, or other telecommunications technology without removing the prisoner from the facility in which the prisoner is confined.(2) Subject to the agreement of the official of the Federal, State, or local unit of government with custody over the prisoner, hearings may be conducted at the facility in which the prisoner is confined. To the extent practicable, the court shall allow counsel to participate by telephone, video conference, or other communications technology in any hearing held at the facility.(g) Waiver of reply(1) Any defendant may waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983 of this title or any other Federal law. Notwithstanding any other law or rule of procedure, such waiver shall not constitute an admission of the allegations contained in the complaint. No relief shall be granted to the plaintiff unless a reply has been filed.(2) The court may require any defendant to reply to a complaint brought under this section if it finds that the plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits.(h) “Prisoner” defined

As used in this section, the term “prisoner” means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.

(Pub. L. 96–247, § 7, May 23, 1980, 94 Stat. 352; Pub. L. 103–322, title II, § 20416(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1833; Pub. L. 104–134, title I, § 101[(a)] [title VIII, § 803(d)], Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321–71; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 104–140, § 1(a), May 2, 1996, 110 Stat. 1327; Pub. L. 113–4, title XI, § 1101(a), Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 134.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 1988 of this title, referred to in subsec. (d)(1), (4), was in the original a reference to section 2 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988), and has been translated as reading section 722 of the Revised Statutes of the United States to reflect the probable intent of Congress. Section 2 of the Revised Statutes, which defined the term “county”, was repealed and reenacted as section 2 of Title 1, General Provisions, by act July 30, 1947, ch. 388, 61 Stat. 633, 640.

Amendments

2013—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 113–4 inserted “or the commission of a sexual act (as defined in section 2246 of title 18)” before period at end.

1996—Pub. L. 104–134 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to suits by prisoners, consisting of subsecs. (a) to (h), for former provisions relating to exhaustion of remedies, consisting of subsecs. (a) to (d).

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322, § 20416(a)(1), substituted “exceed 180 days” for “exceed ninety days” in par. (1) and inserted before period at end of par. (2) “or are otherwise fair and effective”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–322, § 20416(a)(2), inserted “or are otherwise fair and effective” before period at end of par. (1) and “or is no longer fair and effective” before period at end of par. (2).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1994 Amendment

Pub. L. 103–322, title II, § 20416(b), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1834, provided that: “The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 13, 1994].”

Nondisclosure of Information in Actions Brought by Prisoners

Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, § 101(b) [title I, § 127], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–50, 2681–74, provided that: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any action brought by a prisoner under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) against a Federal, State, or local jail, prison, or correctional facility, or any employee or former employee thereof, arising out of the incarceration of that prisoner—“(1) the financial records of a person employed or formerly employed by the Federal, State, or local jail, prison, or correctional facility, shall not be subject to disclosure without the written consent of that person or pursuant to a court order, unless a verdict of liability has been entered against that person; and“(2) the home address, home phone number, social security number, identity of family members, personal tax returns, and personal banking information of a person described in paragraph (1), and any other records or information of a similar nature relating to that person, shall not be subject to disclosure without the written consent of that person, or pursuant to a court order.”

[Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, § 101(b) [title I, § 127], set out above, applicable to fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, see Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(1) [title I, § 109], set out as an Applicability of Provisions Relating to Use of Counterterrorism Appropriations and Nondisclosure of Information in Actions Brought by Prisoners note under section 524 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21,488 cases (12,774 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). · cites it 11× “1321 -71, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e et seq. Among other reforms, the PLRA mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit.”
Michael Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 12× “Rinaldi also requests for the first time in his Reply that, in view of Mack, we remand to give him the opportunity to amend his RFRA claim—the very 8 The District Court granted the Government’s “Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment,” concluding…”
O'NEAL v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 16× “However, in construing a related provision of the PLRA, we held that actions are "brought" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) [5] "`when the complaint is tendered to the district clerk,' and not when it is subsequently filed.”
Charlie Jackson v. R. Fong, 870 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 13× “2000) (en banc) (holding that the term “brought” in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e referred to the filing of the action).”
Damous Nettles v. Randy Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “Instead, it suggests that by requiring one set of procedures for § 1983 claims under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e et seq., and another set for habeas petitions brought pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996…”
Juan Albino v. Lee Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 8× “BACA SUMMARY* Prisoner Civil Rights The en banc court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for plaintiff on the issue of whether he exhausted his administrative remedies, pursuant to the…”
Dawn Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448 (3rd Cir. 2013). · cites it 10× “Second, it established “prescreening” provisions that require a court to dismiss an action or appeal sua sponte if the action is “frivolous” or “malicious,” “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from…”
Pendleton v. Mills, 73 S.W.3d 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 17× “In 1996, the Tennessee General Assembly directed the Department of Correction to “develop and maintain a system for the resolution of grievances by inmates housed in facilities operated by the department that qualifies for certification under 42 U.”
Olivas v. Nevada Ex Rel. Dep't of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 7× “§ 1915 , which establishes procedures for prisoner-plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, which requires prisoner-plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before challenging prison conditions, applied to a plaintiff who was civilly committed.”
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). · cites it 5× “352 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e (1994 ed.). This measure authorized district courts to stay a state prisoner’s §1983 action “for a period of not to exceed 180 days” while the prisoner exhausted available “plain, speedy, and effective administrative remedies.”
May v. Segovia, 929 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 8× “I agree with the majority that the exhaustion requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, applies to May’s procedural due process claim.”
Norman Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. Allegheny Cnty. Jail Camp Hill Prison United States of Am., Intervenor, 293 F.3d 103 (3rd Cir. 2002). · cites it 5× “§ 1915 (e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), was well explained in McGore v.”
Show all 21,488 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(1) — 18 cases
Burchard v. Johnson (E.D. Wis. 2020).
Hrabik v. Kopp (E.D. Wis. 2020).
Gibson v. Bonnett (E.D. Wis. 2021).
Hooker v. Haynes (E.D. Wis. 2021).
Cunningham v. Lupis (D. Conn. 2022).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(2) — 1 case
Garfield v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc., 3 F. App'x 292 (6th Cir. 2001).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(A) — 1 case
Rice (D.S.C. 2026).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(D) — 1 case
Briscoe v. LeBlanc (M.D. La. 2024).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(PLRA) — 1 case
Loftis v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 308 F. App'x 290 (10th Cir. 2009).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) — 12229 cases
Michael Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2018). “Rinaldi also requests for the first time in his Reply that, in view of Mack, we remand to give him the opportunity to amend his RFRA claim—the very 8 The District Court granted the Government’s “Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment,” concluding…”
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). “1321 -71, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e et seq. Among other reforms, the PLRA mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit.”
Juan Albino v. Lee Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). “BACA SUMMARY* Prisoner Civil Rights The en banc court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for plaintiff on the issue of whether he exhausted his administrative remedies, pursuant to the…”
Pendleton v. Mills, 73 S.W.3d 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “In 1996, the Tennessee General Assembly directed the Department of Correction to “develop and maintain a system for the resolution of grievances by inmates housed in facilities operated by the department that qualifies for certification under 42 U.”
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(1) — 35 cases
Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496 (1982).
Douglas Thomas v. Shawn Woolum, Richard Kepler Charlotte Starcher Billie Waddell, Sr., 337 F.3d 720 (6th Cir. 2003).
Darrell Jackson v. Warden Burl Cain, 864 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1989).
John L. Wright v. Terry L. Morris, 111 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 1997).
Cruz v. Jordan, 80 F. Supp. 2d 109 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(1996) — 3 cases
Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F. Supp. 2d 723 (S.D.W. Va 2009).
Hayes v. State, 341 S.W.3d 293 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
Sandlain v. FCI McDowell Warden (S.D.W. Va 2021).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(2) — 14 cases
Langford v. Couch, 50 F. Supp. 2d 544 (E.D. Va. 1999).
MacArthur Rumbles v. Donald R. Hill Black & Beckett, 182 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999).
Michael Collins v. John T. King, Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 743 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1984).
Johnson v. Ozmint, 567 F. Supp. 2d 806 (D.S.C. 2008).
Helms v. Hewitt, 655 F.2d 487 (3rd Cir. 1981).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(2)(1994) — 1 case
Russell v. Johnson, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(2000) — 2 cases
Bethea v. United States Parole Comm'n, 56 F. App'x 514 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Ables v. Hall (N.D. Miss. 2019).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(2001) — 1 case
Bates v. Day, 28 F. App'x 793 (10th Cir. 2001).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(2004) — 1 case
Lodato v. Ortiz, 314 F. Supp. 2d 379 (D.N.J. 2004).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(l) — 35 cases
Pendleton v. Mills, 73 S.W.3d 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “In 1996, the Tennessee General Assembly directed the Department of Correction to “develop and maintain a system for the resolution of grievances by inmates housed in facilities operated by the department that qualifies for certification under 42 U.”
Tanya Marsh v. Johnnie W. Jones, Jr., Warden, 53 F.3d 707 (5th Cir. 1995).
Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 1998).
Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496 (1982).
Langford v. Couch, 50 F. Supp. 2d 544 (E.D. Va. 1999).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(l)(1994) — 1 case
Sallee v. Joyner, 40 F. Supp. 2d 766 (E.D. Va. 1999).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(b) — 16 cases
Shane Kervin v. La Clair Barnes, 787 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2015).
Lacey v. C.S.P. Solano Med. Staff, 990 F. Supp. 1199 (E.D. Cal. 1997).
Wisenbaker v. Farwell, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Nev. 2004).
Spence v. Mendoza, 993 F. Supp. 785 (E.D. Cal. 1998).
Knowles v. New Hampshire Dep't of Corr., 538 F. Supp. 2d 453 (D.N.H. 2008).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(b)(1) — 1 case
MacK v. State, 529 So. 2d 446 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(b)(2) — 2 cases
Muhammad v. Carlson, 739 F.2d 122 (3rd Cir. 1984).
Lewis v. Meyer, 630 F. Supp. 937 (E.D. Wis. 1986).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(b)(2)(A) — 2 cases
Herbert Glenn Martin v. Michael Catalanotto, Eric Leon Williams v. Daryl Horton, 895 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1990).
Lewis v. Meyer, 630 F. Supp. 937 (E.D. Wis. 1986).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(b)(2)(B) — 1 case
Lewis v. Meyer, 630 F. Supp. 937 (E.D. Wis. 1986).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(b)(2)(C) — 1 case
Lewis v. Meyer, 630 F. Supp. 937 (E.D. Wis. 1986).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(b)(2)(D) — 1 case
Lewis v. Meyer, 630 F. Supp. 937 (E.D. Wis. 1986).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(b)(l) — 6 cases
MacArthur Rumbles v. Donald R. Hill Black & Beckett, 182 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999).
Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996 (6th Cir. 1992).
Richard Lee Owen, II v. James Kimmel, 693 F.2d 711 (7th Cir. 1982).
Kennedy v. Herschler, 655 F.2d 210 (10th Cir. 1981).
Magee v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 555 So. 2d 6 (La. Ct. App. 1989).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) — 2893 cases
O'NEAL v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008). “However, in construing a related provision of the PLRA, we held that actions are "brought" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) [5] "`when the complaint is tendered to the district clerk,' and not when it is subsequently filed.”
Dawn Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448 (3rd Cir. 2013). “Second, it established “prescreening” provisions that require a court to dismiss an action or appeal sua sponte if the action is “frivolous” or “malicious,” “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from…”
Casey Dooley v. John Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366 (3rd Cir. 2020).
Norman Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. Allegheny Cnty. Jail Camp Hill Prison United States of Am., Intervenor, 293 F.3d 103 (3rd Cir. 2002). “§ 1915 (e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), was well explained in McGore v.”
Davis v. Prison Health Servs., 679 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2012).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) — 612 cases
Chris Davis v. James Gallagher, 951 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2020).
O'NEAL v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008). “However, in construing a related provision of the PLRA, we held that actions are "brought" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) [5] "`when the complaint is tendered to the district clerk,' and not when it is subsequently filed.”
Charlie Jackson v. R. Fong, 870 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2017). “2000) (en banc) (holding that the term “brought” in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e referred to the filing of the action).”
Fletcher Small v. Officer Brock, 963 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2020).
Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2) — 142 cases
Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2005).
Alder v. Corr. Med. Servs., 73 F. App'x 839 (6th Cir. 2003).
Dawn Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448 (3rd Cir. 2013). “Second, it established “prescreening” provisions that require a court to dismiss an action or appeal sua sponte if the action is “frivolous” or “malicious,” “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from…”
Franklin v. Kansas Dep't of Corr., 160 F. App'x 730 (10th Cir. 2005).
Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107 (11th Cir. 2006).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(l) — 108 cases
Norman Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. Allegheny Cnty. Jail Camp Hill Prison United States of Am., Intervenor, 293 F.3d 103 (3rd Cir. 2002). “§ 1915 (e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), was well explained in McGore v.”
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). “1321 -71, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e et seq. Among other reforms, the PLRA mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit.”
Wayne LaFountain v. Shirlee Harry, 716 F.3d 944 (6th Cir. 2013).
Michael Beenick, Jr. v. Michael LeFebvre, 684 F. App'x 200 (3rd Cir. 2017).
Stanford Shane Otis Terrell Robert Stewart v. William Fauver, Comm'r James Barbo, Adm'r Rogers, Chief Dir. of Custody, 213 F.3d 113 (3rd Cir. 2000).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d) — 117 cases
Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999).
Charles Murphy v. Robert Smith, 844 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2016).
Heriberto Rodriguez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2018).
Victor Parsons v. Charles Ryan, 949 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2020).
Walker v. Bain, 257 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2001).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1) — 44 cases
Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999).
Victor Parsons v. Charles Ryan, 949 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2020).
Perez v. Westchester Cnty. Dep't of Corr., 587 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2009).
Jean-Louis v. City of N.Y., 342 F. Supp. 3d 436 (S.D. Ill. 2018).
Coleman Jackson v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, Dept. of Offender Rehab. of the State of Georgia, 331 F.3d 790 (11th Cir. 2003).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(A) — 14 cases
Coleman Jackson v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, Dept. of Offender Rehab. of the State of Georgia, 331 F.3d 790 (11th Cir. 2003).
Adree Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 97 F.4th 1165 (9th Cir. 2024).
Parmelee v. O'Neel, 168 Wash. 2d 515 (Wash. 2010).
Parmelee v. O'NEEL, 229 P.3d 723 (Wash. 2010).
Graves v. Arpaio, 633 F. Supp. 2d 834 (D. Ariz. 2009).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(B) — 1 case
Delaughter v. Woodall (S.D. Miss. 2022).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(B)(i) — 11 cases
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001).
Walker v. Bain, 257 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2001).
Platinum Supplemental Insuranc v. Guarantee Trust Life Insuranc, 989 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 2021).
Dartez v. Peters, 97 F.4th 681 (10th Cir. 2024).
McLindon v. Russell, 108 F. Supp. 2d 842 (S.D. Ohio 1999).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(B)(ii) — 1 case
Balla v. Idaho, 677 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2012).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2) — 91 cases
Walker v. Bain, 257 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2001).
Robert Foulk v. Ronald Charrier, Lieutenant Charrier Individually & in His Off. Capacity, United States of Am., Intervenor Below-Appellant, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001).
Murphy v. Smith, 138 S. Ct. 784 (2018).
Kahle v. Leonard, 563 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2009).
Shepherd v. Goord, 662 F.3d 603 (2d Cir. 2011).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3) — 91 cases
Joshua Kelly v. Timothy Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2016).
Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999).
Victor Parsons v. Charles Ryan, 949 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2020).
Murphy v. Smith, 138 S. Ct. 784 (2018).
Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2010).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(4) — 3 cases
Boivin v. Black, 225 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2000).
Morrison v. Davis, 88 F. Supp. 2d 799 (S.D. Ohio 2000).
Reed v. Larson (S.D. Ill. 2024).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(B)(i) — 1 case
Union of Needletrades, Indus. & Textile Employees v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 202 F. Supp. 2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(l) — 34 cases
Joshua Kelly v. Timothy Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2016).
Laube v. Allen, 506 F. Supp. 2d 969 (M.D. Ala. 2007).
Sergio Hernandez v. Kalinowski, Sgt. Clemson, C.O. Novotney, Capt. John Doe, C.O., I John Doe, C.O., II, 146 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir. 1998).
Volk v. Gonzalez, 262 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2001).
Carbonell v. Acrish, 154 F. Supp. 2d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(l)(A) — 16 cases
Ernest D. Johnson v. Brian Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2002).
Jimmie Lee Riley v. David T. Kurtz, 361 F.3d 906 (6th Cir. 2004).
Laube v. Allen, 506 F. Supp. 2d 969 (M.D. Ala. 2007).
Sergio Hernandez v. Kalinowski, Sgt. Clemson, C.O. Novotney, Capt. John Doe, C.O., I John Doe, C.O., II, 146 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir. 1998).
Morrison v. Davis, 88 F. Supp. 2d 799 (S.D. Ohio 2000).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(l)(B) — 4 cases
Morrison v. Davis, 88 F. Supp. 2d 799 (S.D. Ohio 2000).
Rodriguez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 96 F. Supp. 3d 1012 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
Kelly v. Wengler, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (D. Idaho 2014).
Carruthers v. Jenne, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2002).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(l)(B)(i) — 12 cases
Fisher v. SD Prot. Inc., 948 F.3d 593 (2d Cir. 2020).
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001).
Robert Foulk v. Ronald Charrier, Lieutenant Charrier Individually & in His Off. Capacity, United States of Am., Intervenor Below-Appellant, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001).
United Auto. Workers Local 259 Soc. Sec. Dep't v. Metro Auto Ctr., 501 F.3d 283 (3rd Cir. 2007).
Clark v. Phillips, 965 F. Supp. 331 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(l)(B)(ii) — 4 cases
Laube v. Allen, 506 F. Supp. 2d 969 (M.D. Ala. 2007).
El-Tabech v. Clarke, 616 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2010).
Webb v. Ada Cnty., 285 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002).
Hall v. Terrell, 648 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (D. Colo. 2009).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) — 2082 cases
Kristin Sconiers v. FNU Lockhart, 946 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2020).
Ned Hughes v. Charles Lott, 350 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 2003).
Walker v. Schult, 45 F.4th 598 (2d Cir. 2022).
Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2008).
Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)(1) — 3 cases
Hernandez v. Cate, 918 F. Supp. 2d 987 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
Day v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 233 F. App'x 132 (3rd Cir. 2007).
Brown v. Silva (E.D. Wis. 2023).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)(2) — 7 cases
Joshua Liner v. Glenn Goord Walter Kelly Gilmore, Sgt. John Doe 1 John Doe 2, 196 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999).
Burgess v. Morse, 259 F. Supp. 2d 240 (W.D.N.Y. 2003).
Walton v. Bouchard, 136 F. App'x 846 (6th Cir. 2005).
Hayes v. Berghuis, 40 F. App'x 18 (6th Cir. 2002).
McClaine-Bey v. Spicer, 3 F. App'x 342 (6th Cir. 2001).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)(3) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Castillo (S.D. Fla. 2021).
Johnson v. Castillo (S.D. Fla. 2021).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)(l) — 5 cases
Alexander L. Baxter v. Jim Rose, James Davis, Nicky Jordan, Scotty Smith, Bobby Pevahouse, Bert Staggs, & Jim Bevis, 305 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2002).
Torns v. Mississippi Dep't of Corr., 301 F. App'x 386 (5th Cir. 2008).
Bui Phu Xuan v. Fort Worth Star Telegram, 277 F. App'x 452 (5th Cir. 2008).
Kittelson v. Nafrawi, 112 F. App'x 946 (5th Cir. 2004).
Johnson v. Sadzewicz, 426 F. Supp. 2d 635 (E.D. Mich. 2006).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(f) — 4 cases
Alexander S. v. Boyd, 113 F.3d 1373 (4th Cir. 1997).
Bustillo v. Hilliard, 16 F. App'x 494 (7th Cir. 2001).
Wiggins v. Corr. Corp., 27 F. App'x 315 (6th Cir. 2001).
Alexander S. v. Boyd (4th Cir. 1997).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(f)(l) — 4 cases
John W. Perotti v. Diane Quinones, 790 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2015).
Edwards v. Logan, 38 F. Supp. 2d 463 (W.D. Va. 1999).
Gerald E. Gilbert v. Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., 490 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App. 2016).
Lloyd Richard v. Willy Martin, Jr., 451 F. App'x 381 (5th Cir. 2011).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g) — 991 cases
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). “1321 -71, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e et seq. Among other reforms, the PLRA mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit.”
Henricks v. Pickaway Corr. Inst., 782 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2015).
Shabazz v. Franklin, 380 F. Supp. 2d 793 (N.D. Tex. 2005).
Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 61 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (D.N.M. 2014).
Alexander S. v. Boyd, 113 F.3d 1373 (4th Cir. 1997).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1) — 97 cases
Hix v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 196 F. App'x 350 (6th Cir. 2006).
Joseph v. Paredes (N.D. Cal. 2022).
Eaves v. Cox (D. Colo. 2024).
(PC) Greschner v. CDCR (E.D. Cal. 2019).
Butler v. Pickell (E.D. Mich. 2022).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) — 1165 cases
Baltoski v. Pretorius, 291 F. Supp. 2d 807 (N.D. Ind. 2003).
Thompson v. TDCJ, 67 F.4th 275 (5th Cir. 2023).
Walker v. Schult, 45 F.4th 598 (2d Cir. 2022).
Shidler v. Moore, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (N.D. Ind. 2006).
Rowe v. Davis, 373 F. Supp. 2d 822 (N.D. Ind. 2005).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(l) — 6 cases
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). “1321 -71, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e et seq. Among other reforms, the PLRA mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit.”
Anderson v. Jutzy, 175 F. Supp. 3d 781 (E.D. Mich. 2016).
Robert A. Christiansen v. Dir. Charles J. McRay, 380 F. App'x 862 (11th Cir. 2010).
Lee v. Suthers, 50 F. App'x 942 (10th Cir. 2002).
Young v. Bowen, 328 F. App'x 534 (9th Cir. 2009).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h) — 297 cases
Olivas v. Nevada Ex Rel. Dep't of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2017). “§ 1915 , which establishes procedures for prisoner-plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, which requires prisoner-plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before challenging prison conditions, applied to a plaintiff who was civilly committed.”
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3874 (2017).
Talamantes v. Leyva, 575 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sergentakis v. Channell, 272 F. Supp. 3d 221 (D. Mass. 2017).
Ross v. Cnty. of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(l) — 1 case
Simpson v. Overton, 79 F. App'x 117 (6th Cir. 2003).
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.