Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

D. PLRA/prison issues

Ross v. Blake, USSC No. 15-339, 2016 WL 3128839 (June 6, 2016), vacating and remanding Blake v. Ross, 787 F.3d 693 (4th Cir. 2015); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary) The Supreme Court unanimously holds there is no unwritten “special circumstances” exception to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act’s requirement that a prisoner exhaust administrative remedies before… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Bruce v. Samuels, USSC No. 14-844, 2016 WL 112684 (January 12, 2016), affirming Pinson v. Samuels, 761 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) of the federal Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis must pay 20% of his or her existing income toward the filing… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Question presented: Is there a common law “special circumstances” exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act that relieves an inmate of his mandatory obligation to exhaust administrative remedies when the inmate erroneously believes that he satisfied exhaustion by participating in an internal investigation? Lower court opinion: Blake v. Ross, 787 F.3d 693 (4th Cir. 2015) Docket… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Question presented: When a prisoner files more than one case or appeal in the federal courts in forma pauperis, does 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) cap the monthly exaction of filing fees at 20% of the prisoner’s monthly income regardless of the number of cases or appeals for which he owes filing fees? Lower court decision… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Coleman v. Tollefson, USSC No. 13-1333, 2015 WL 2340838 (May 18, 2015), affirming Coleman v. Tollefson, 733 F.3d 175 (6th Cir. 2013); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary) Ordinarily, an indigent litigant may proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), which allows the litigant to file a civil action without paying fees or certain expenses. But under the federal… Read More

{ 0 comments }

PLRA – Partial Dismissal as Strike

State ex rel. Titus Henderson v. Raemisch, 2010 WI App 114; pro se; Resp. Br. Partial dismissal of a prisoner lawsuit doesn’t counts as a “strike” within the meaning of the  § 801.02(7)(d) “three-strike” provision of the Wisconsin Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. The PLRA regulates “prisoner” lawsuits. Typically, these relate to conditions of confinement, something the SPD doesn’t provide representation for… Read More

{ 0 comments }