Twenty Years After Reform, Inmate Litigation Still Crowds Dockets

A million dollars in damages for melted ice cream. Cruel and unusual punishment for having to listen to country music. A suit demanding L.A. Gear or Reebock shoes instead of prison-issued Converses. An emotional distress claim for receiving crunchy, instead of creamy, peanut butter.1

Are these the types of lawsuits to which our courts should be devoting time and resources?

Congress apparently thought otherwise when they passed – with overwhelming bipartisan support – thePrison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Last year marked the twentieth anniversary of the PLRA, a legislative response "in the wake of a sharp rise in prisoner litigation in the federal courts." According to bill sponsors,2 the national Association of Attorneys General estimated at the time that the inmate "litigation explosion" cost the states more than $81 million a year to defend. The goal of the Act, frankly acknowledged, was toreduce the number of prisoner suits filed in order to "cur[b] frivolous prisoner litigation" and to "preserv[e] . . . our limited appellate resources."

The Fifth Circuit's comments prior to the PLRA also highlighted the need for the Act:

Unlike most litigants, prisoners have everything to gain and nothing to lose by filing frivolous suits. Filing a suit in forma pauperis costs a prisoner little or nothing; time is usually of little importance to a prisoner and prisoners are not often deterred by the threat of possible sanctions for malicious or frivolous actions or perjury. Moreover, a prisoner, while he may be unsuccessful, can at least look forward to "a short sabbatical in the nearest federal courthouse." Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 327 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). Thus, the temptation to file frivolous or malicious suits is strong, and these suits clutter up the federal courts, wasting scarce and valuable judicial resources, subjecting prison officials unnecessarily to the burdens of litigation and preventing prisoner suits with merit from receiving adequate attention.

To reduce frivolous prisoner litigation, the PLRA requires inmates to exhaust administrative remedies before suing; prohibits additional claims after an inmate has three claims dismissed as frivolous (the "three-strikes" rule); requires in forma pauperis litigants to pay partial filing fees; and limits attorney's fees in cases of represented inmates.

Since the PLRA was enacted, the number of prisoner suits filed has certainly fallen – from around 25 annual filings per 1000...