The Prison Litigation Reform Act: Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies As An Affirmative Defense

• Published date: 08 January 2024
• Subject Matter: Government, Public Sector, Constitutional & Administrative Law
• Law Firm: Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols
• Author: Jacob A. Sosnay

Convicted prisoners, pre-trial and pre-sentencing detainees confined to correctional facilities enjoy the same constitutional rights as those of us that are not incarcerated.¹ Unsurprisingly, individuals confined to correctional facilities, with little or nothing productive to do with their time, find ample reasons to claim they are treated poorly during confinement. As a result, and without comment on the veracity of any given claim as - certainly - many of the claims asserted by inmates are valid, incarcerated persons tend to file an incredible number of lawsuits. Because of the volume of lawsuits filed by inmates, to deter the frivolous ones, Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e ("PLRA") in 1996. One of its primary functions mandates that, prior to a lawsuit filed by an incarcerated pro se inmate moving forward - i.e. service of process on the targeted defendant(s) - the District Courts first "screen" prisoner complaints to ensure the allegations sufficiently set forth viable causes of action. 28 U.S.C. '1915(a).

If, after the District Court screens the prisoner complaint, the action is permitted to proceed, the PLRA establishes a powerful defense for institutional defendants. A necessary prerequisite to any prisoner litigation is the prisoner's affirmative obligation to, prior to filing suit in the first instance, exhaust his or her "administrative remedies." Sec. 1997e(a). Administrative remedies are those which are defined by the institution in which the prisoner was confined at the time the alleged constitutional violation occurred and are more commonly referred to as "grievance procedures." What this means is, before an inmate files suit, he or she must first have attempted to resolve the claims at issue by first complying with the procedures defined and outlined in, for example, the inmate handbook for the subject institution.

Importantly, exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory, as the PLRA "eliminated the [district courts'] discretion to dispense with [it]." Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001). In the Seventh Circuit, strict adherence to the PLRA's exhaustion requirement is mandated. Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the PLRA requires "proper exhaustion," meaning that a prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006); see also, Pozo v....