Jeanne S. Woodford, et al. v. Viet Mike Ngo (548 U.S. 81)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 22, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 548 U.S. 81 · 126 S. Ct. 2378
- Decided
- June 22, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2005
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Alito
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether a prisoner can satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a), by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal. We hold that proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary. I A Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 110 Stat. 1321-71, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e et seq., in 1996 in the wake of a sharp rise in prisoner litigation in the federal courts, see, e. g., Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F. 3d 1321, 1324-1325 (CA11 1998) (citing statistics). The PLRA contains a variety of provisions designed to bring this litigation under control. See, e. g., § 1997e(c) (requiring district courts to weed out prisoner claims that clearly lack merit); §1997e(e) (prohibiting claims for emotional injury without prior showing of physical injury); §1997e(d) (restricting attorney’s fees). A centerpiece of the PLRA’s effort “to reduce the quantity ... of prisoner suits” is an “invigorated” exhaustion provision, § 1997e(a). Porter v. Nussle, 534 U. S. 516, 524 (2002). Before 1980, prisoners asserting constitutional claims had no obligation to exhaust administrative remedies. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U. S. 249, 251 (1971) (per curiam). In the Civil Rights of Institutionalized…
Excerpt of a 39,477-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.