Prison Litigation Reform Act

Listen to this article

US Supreme Court

Case Name: Ross v. Blake

Case No.: 15-339

Focus: Prison Litigation Reform Act

4^th circuits unwritten “special circumstances” exception is inconsistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

“The PLRA speaks in unambiguous terms, providing that “[n]o action shall be brought” absent exhaustion of available administrative remedies. §1997e(a). Aside from one significant qualifier—that administrative remedies must indeed be “available”—the text suggests no limits on an inmate’s obligation to exhaust. That mandatory language means a court may not excuse a failure to exhaust, even to take “special circumstances” into account. When it comes to statutory exhaustion provisions, courts have a role in creating exceptions only if Congress wants them to. So mandatory exhaustion statutes like the PLRA establish mandatory exhaustion regimes, foreclosing judicial discretion. See, e.g., McNeil v. United States, 508 U. S. 106. Time and again, this Court has rejected every attempt to deviate from the PLRA’s textual mandate. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U. S. 731; Porter v. Nussle, 534 U. S. 516; Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U. S. 81. All those precedents rebut the Fourth Circuit’s “special circumstances” excuse for non-exhaustion. “

Vacated and Remanded

Concurring: THOMAS, BREYER

Dissenting:

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.