By: dmc-admin//June 4, 2001//
“When Congress replaced the text of the statute as construed in [McCarthy v. Madigan] with the exhaustion requirement at issue today, it presumably understood that under McCarthy the term ‘effective’ in the former sec. 1997e(a) eliminated the possibility of requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies when an inmate sought only monetary relief and the administrative process offered none. It has to be significant that Congress removed the very term we had previously emphasized in reaching the result Booth now seeks, and the fair inference to be drawn is that Congress meant to preclude the McCarthy result. Congress’s imposition of an obviously broader exhaustion requirement makes it highly implausible that it meant to give prisoners a strong inducement to skip the administrative process simply by limiting prayers for relief to money damages not offered through administrative grievance mechanisms.”
Affirmed.
Local Effect:
The decision is consistent with current Seventh Circuit law, as set forth in Perez v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Corrections, 182 F.3d 532 (7th Cir.1999).
99-1964 Booth v. Churner
Souter, J.
On Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 206 F.3d 289.