The Prison Litigation Reform Act was passed by Congress in 1996. It had a two-fold purpose: reduce the amount of prisoner litigation and curtail the involvement of the federal courts in the operations of state prison systems. Since its passage, the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous lower federal courts have had the opportunity to interpret several of its complicated and controversial provisions. This article looks at what the courts have decided thus far and predicts future court opinions.
Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3rd Cir. 2001)(en banc).
2.
Alderstein, D. M. (2001). In need of correction: The “iron triangle” of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Columbia Law Review, 101, 1681-1707.
3.
Alexander, E. (1998). We can work it out: Settlements are still possible after PLRA. Corrections Today, 60(5), 64-66.
4.
Allah v. Al-Hafeez, 226 F.3d 247 (2000).
5.
Altizer v. Deeds, 191 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 1999).
6.
Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 1998).
7.
Atchison v. Collins, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 6074 (5th Cir. 2002).
8.
Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883 (5th Cir. 1998).
9.
Bell v. Whethel, 1997 U.S. App LEXIS 28553 (10th Cir. 1997).
10.
Bennett, K., & Del Carmen, R. V. (1997). A review and analysis of prison litigation reform court decisions: Solution or aggravation?Prison Journal, 77(4), 405-455.
11.
Boivin v. Black, 225 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2000).
12.
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731; 121 S.Ct. 1819; 149 L.Ed. 2d 958 (2001).
13.
Boston, J. (1998). PLRA is not the answer. Corrections Today, 60(5), 21-21.
14.
Branham, L. S. (1997). Limiting the burdens of pro se inmate litigation: A technical-assistance manual for courts, correctional officials, and attorneys general. Chicago: American Bar Association.
15.
Branham, L. S. (2001a). The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s enigmatic exhaustion requirement: What it means and what congress, courts, and correctional officials can learn from it. Cornell Law Review, 86, 483-547.
16.
Branham, L. S. (2001b). Toothless in truth? The ethereal rational basis test and the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s disparate restrictions on attorney’s fees. California Law Review, 89, 999-1053.
17.
Burton, A. W. (2001). Prisoners’ suits for money damages: An exception to the administrative exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Fordham Law Review, 69, 1359-1397.
18.
Butler, T. J. (1999). The Prison Litigation Reform Act: A separation of powers dilemma. Alabama Law Review, 50, 585-601.
19.
Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1998).
20.
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 98 S.Ct. 1042; 55 L.Ed. 2d 252 (1978).
21.
Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818 (5th Cir. 1997).
22.
Chatin v. Coombe, 186 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 1999).
23.
Cheesman, F., II, Hanson, R. A., & Ostrom, B. J. (2000). The tale of two laws: The U.S. Congress confronts habeas corpus petitions and section 1983 law suits. Law and Policy, 22(2), 89-113.
24.
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997e (1980).
25.
Collins v. Montgomery County Board of Prison Inspectors, 176 F.3d 679 (3rd Cir. 1999)(en banc).
26.
Collins, W. C., & Grant, D. C. (1998). The Prison Litigation Reform Act. Corrections Today, 60(5), 60-62.
27.
Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546; 84 S.Ct. 1733; 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1964).
28.
Crouch, B. M., & Marquart, J. W. (1989). An appeal to justice: Litigated reform of Texas prisons. Austin: University of Texas Press.
29.
Decker, D. (1997). Consent decrees and the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Usurping judicial power or quelling judicial micromanagement?Wisconsin Law Review, 1997, 1275-1321.
30.
Federal Judicial Center. (1996). Resource guide for managing prisoners’ civil rights litigation with special emphasis on the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3rd Cir. 1997).
32.
Gilmore v. State of California, 200 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2000).
33.
Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281 (6th Cir. 1997).
34.
Harvard Law Review Association. (1991). Resolving prisoners’ grievances out of court: 42 U.S.C. §1997e. Harvard Law Review, 104, 1309-1328.
35.
Harvard Law Review Association. (2002). Developments in the law: The law of prisons II: The Prison Litigation Reform Act and the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act: Implications for federal district judges. Harvard Law Review, 115, 1846-1868.
36.
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 429; 103 S.Ct. 1933; 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).
37.
Herman, S. N. (1998). Slashing and burning prisoners’rights: Congress and the Supreme Court in dialogue. Oregon Law Review, 77, 1229-1303.
38.
Higgens v. Carpenter, 258 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2001).
39.
Jeffrey, R. S. (2001). Restricting prisoners’ equal access to the federal courts: The three strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act and substantive equal protection. Buffalo Law Review, 49, 1099-1161.
40.
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 1999).
41.
Kuzinski, E. J. (1998). The end of the prison law firm?: Frivolous inmate litigation, judicial over-sight, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Rutgers Law Journal, 29, 361-397.
42.
Levy, S. (2000). Balancing physical abuse by the system against abuse of the system: Defining “imminent danger” within the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Iowa Law Review, 86, 361-392.
43.
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343; 116 S.Ct. 2174; 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).
44.
Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2002).
45.
Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 1998).
46.
Madrid v. Gomez, 190 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 1999).
47.
Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343; 119 S. Ct. 1998; 144 L.Ed. 2d 347 (1999).
48.
Mason v. Schriro, 45 F. Supp. 2d 709 (W.D. Mo. 1999).
49.
McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140; 117 L.Ed 2d 291; 112 S.Ct. 1081 (1992).
50.
Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 1999).
51.
Memphis School District v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299; 106 S.Ct. 2537; 91 L.Ed. 2d 249 (1986).
52.
Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 147 L.Ed. 2d 326, 120 S.Ct. 2246 (2000).
53.
Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1997).
54.
Mueller, K. (1995). Inmates’ civil rights cases and the federal courts: Insights derived from a field research project in the eastern district of California. Creighton Law Review, 28, 1255-1309.
55.
Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429 (1997).
56.
Newman, J. O. (1996). Pro se litigation: Lookingfor needles in haystacks. Brooklyn Law Review, 62, 519-527.
57.
Nicholas v. Tucker, 114 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 1997).
58.
Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 1997).
59.
Pepe, J. E. (1999). Challenging Congress’s latest attempt to confine prisoners’ constitutional rights: Equal protection and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Hamline Law Review, 23, 58-80.
60.
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516; 122 S.Ct. 983; 152 L.Ed 2d 12 (2002).
Roots, R. (2002). Of prisoners and plaintiffs’ lawyers: A tale of two litigation reform efforts. Willamette Law Review, 38, 210-232.
65.
Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992).
66.
Ruiz v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 941 (2001).
67.
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472; 115 S.Ct. 2293; 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).
68.
Searles v. Bebber, 251 F.3d 869 (2001).
69.
Shabazz v. Parsons, 127 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 1997).
70.
Singleton v. Smith, 241 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2001).
71.
Smith, C. E. (2000). The governance of corrections: Implications of the changing interface of courts and corrections. Criminal Justice 2000: Boundary Changes in Criminal Justice Organizations, 2, 112-166.
72.
Taylor, K. F. (2000). The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s administrative exhaustion requirement: Closing the money damages loophole. Washington University Law Quarterly, 78, 955-978.
73.
Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2002).
74.
Tucker v. Branker, 142 F.3d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
75.
Tushnet, M., & Yackle, L. (1997). Symbolic statutes and real laws: The pathologies of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Duke Law Journal, 47(1), 1-86.
76.
Vandenbraak, S. B. (1998). PLRA: A step in the right direction. Corrections Today, 60(5), 20-20.
77.
Volk v. Gonzalez, 262 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2001).
78.
Walker v. Bain, 257 F.3d 660, (6th Cir. 2001).
79.
White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 1998).
80.
Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264 (2nd Cir. 2001).
81.
Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 1998).
82.
Yackle, L. W. (1989). Reform and regret: The story of federal judicial involvement in the Alabama prison system. New York: Oxford University Press.
