42 U.S.C. § 1997j
Disclaimer respecting private litigation
The provisions of this subchapter shall in no way expand or restrict the authority of parties other than the United States to enforce the legal rights which they may have pursuant to existing law with regard to institutionalized persons. In this regard, the fact that the Attorney General may be conducting an investigation or contemplating litigation pursuant to this subchapter shall not be grounds for delay of or prejudice to any litigation on behalf of parties other than the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Shook v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 543 F.3d 597 (10th Cir. 2008).
Shook v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 543 F.3d 597 (10th Cir. 2008). “Moreover, the statute in question explicitly disclaims any effort to “expand or restrict the authority of parties other than the United States to *610 enforce the legal rights which they may have,” 42 U.S.C. § 1997j, highlighting the fact that the United States’ ability to bring…”
Miller v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 703 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2010). “See 42 U.S.C. § 1997j (“The provisions of this subchapter shall in no way expand or restrict the authority of parties other than the United States to enforce the legal rights which they may have pursuant to existing law with regard to institutionalized persons.”
McRorie v. Shimoda, 795 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1986). “We affirm the district court dismissal of this claim because 42 U.S.C. § 1997j precludes a private cause of action under these sections.”
United States v. Michigan, 116 F.R.D. 655 (W.D. Mich. 1987). “Although CRIPA states that a suit brought by the United States “shall not be grounds for delay of or prejudice to any litigation on behalf of parties other than the United States,” 42 U.S.C. § 1997j, as a practical manner I believe that many, if not most, courts would defer…”
Messier v. Southbury Training Sch., 916 F. Supp. 133 (D. Conn. 1996). “However, any such argument must be qualified by reference to CRI-PA’s disclaimer respecting private litigation, which states in relevant part: *139 42 U.S.C. § 1997j. The precise interplay between this clause and res judicata principles is not entirely clear and need not be…”
United States v. Oregon, 839 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1988). “42 U.S.C. § 1997j (“section 12”). Whether or not the appellants can intervene in this action thus depends solely upon whether or not they meet the requirements for intervention under Rule 24, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Pugmire v. Penzone (D. Ariz. 2024). “§§ 1997–1997j, “in no way expand[s] or restrict[s] the authority of parties other 22 than the United States to enforce the legal rights which they may have pursuant to existing 23 law with regard to institutionalized persons.”
Gobea v. Penzone (D. Ariz. 2024). “” 42 U.S.C. § 1997j. Thus, an institutionalized 5 person cannot bring a separate claim under this legislation.”
McFarland v. Penzone (D. Ariz. 2024). “” 42 U.S.C. § 1997j. It does not create a cause 5 of action for institutionalized persons.”
Villa v. Skinner (D. Ariz. 2024). “” 42 U.S.C. § 1997j. It does not create a cause 8 of action for institutionalized persons.”
Antone-Stephens v. Skinner (D. Ariz. 2024). “” 42 U.S.C. § 1997j. It does not create a cause 27 of action for institutionalized persons.”
Hunter 372643 v. Skinner (D. Ariz. 2025). “§§ 1997–1997j, “in no way expand[s] or restrict[s] the authority of parties other 22 than the United States to enforce the legal rights which they may have pursuant to existing 23 law with regard to institutionalized persons.”
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.