Document: 534 U.S. 516122 S.Ct. 983152 L.Ed.2d 12 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.CORRECTION OFFICER PORTER, et al., PETITIONERSv.RONALD NUSSLE No. 00-853. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued January 14, 2002Decided February 26, 2002 Syllabus Without filing a grievance under applicable Connecticut Department Correction procedures, plaintiff-respondent Nussle, state prison inmate, commenced federal court action 42 U.S.C. 1983 charging officers, including defendant-petitioner Porter, had subjected him sustained pattern harassment and intimidation singled out for severe beating violation Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel unusual punishments." The District dismissed Nussle's suit, relying provision Prison Litigation Reform Act 1995 (PLRA), 1997e(a), directs: "No shall brought with respect conditions section ... , Federal law, by prisoner until such administrative remedies as available exhausted." Second Circuit reversed, holding exhaustion not required claim kind Nussle asserted. appeals concluded 1997e(a)'s "prison conditions" phrase covers only affecting prisoners generally, single incidents immediately affect particular prisoners, officers' use excessive force. In support its position, cited legislative history suggesting PLRA curtails frivolous suits, actions seeking relief from officer brutality; also referred pre-PLRA decisions which this distinguished, proof injury mens rea purposes, between force claims confinement claims. Held: PLRA's requirement applies all inmate suits about life, whether they involve general circumstances episodes, allege some wrong. Cf. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 294, 299, n. 1. Pp. 5-14. (a) current 1997e(a) differs markedly predecessor. Once within district court's discretion, cases now mandatory. See Booth Churner, 532 731, 739. And unlike previous provision, encompassed "action[s] conditions." Section designed reduce quantity improve quality affords officials an opportunity address complaints internally allowing initiation case. instances, corrective taken response inmate's might administration satisfy thereby obviating need litigation. Id., at 737. internal review filter Ibid. ultimately court, record clarifying controversy's contours could facilitate adjudication. See, e.g., ibid. 5-7. (b) Determination meaning guided text context, Court's prior relating "[s]uits prisoners," 1997e titled. pathmarking McCarthy Bronson, 500 136, construed Magistrates Act's authorization judges refer "prisoner petitions challenging confinement" magistrate judges. that, read proper "challenging authorizes nonconsensual reference magistrate, id., 139. emphasized Preiser Rodriguez, 411 475, unambiguously placed involving episodes unconstitutional conduct broad category confinement, U.S., 141; found it telling Congress, composing Act, chose language so clearly paralleled opinion, 142; considered significant latter purpose-to lighten overworked judges' caseload-would thwarted satellite litigation over precise exception episode cases, 143. presumption Congress expects statutes conformity precedents, Wells, 519 482, 495, dominant concern promote redress, groundless claims, foster better prepared aired see 737, persuade key words properly through lens Preiser. Those tug strongly away classifying guards' force, one many times, anything than "with misplaces principal reliance Hudson McMillian, 503 1, 8-9, Farmer Brennan, 511 825, 835-836. Although those did distinguish context requirements: what must plaintiff show; mental plead prove. Proof requirements, once case however, do touch threshold inquiry issue here: resort process precede court. There no reason believe meant release evidentiary distinctions drawn their moorings extend application otherwise invigorated requirement. It least equally plausible inserted into simply make clear preincarceration fall outside example, against prisoner's arresting officer. Furthermore, asserted distinction exhaustion-mandatory "frivolous" untenable, can frivolous, serves purposes beyond weeding allegations. 7-12. (c) Other infirmities inhere Circuit's disposition. McCarthy, environment, specific incident symptomatic systemic problem, rather aberrational. 143-144. urges his isolated category, but he urge complaint describes practice climaxing alleged beating. seems unlikely when included firm requirement, leave exhaust pleader's option. Preiser, 489-490. Moreover, disposition augurs complexity; bifurcated proceedings would normal thereunder when, sues both have used supervisor who allegedly failed adequately monitor charge. Finally, scant sense supports occurrence, prevailing circumstance dichotomy. For authorities' interest receiving prompt notice of, take against, guard brutality less compelling stop types staff wrongdoing. 492. 12-14. 224 F.3d 95, reversed remanded. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR SECOND CIRCUIT Ginsburg, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion Justice Ginsburg 1 concerns obligation denial rights while incarcerated procedures judicial relief. Plaintiff-respondent Ronald prison, directly without grievance, officers beating, bypassed procedure despite 110 Stat. 1321-73, amended, (1994 ed., Supp. V), title, confined jail, correctional facility 2 Appeals held governs incidents, prisoners. defends judgment, relevant which, says, pursued administratively, recognizes, proceed first process. We reject readings hold, line purpose PLRA, our precedent point, weight lower authority, redress occurrences. 3 * Respondent Cheshire Correctional Institution Connecticut. App. 38. According complaint, "a prolonged intimidation" time arrival there May 1996. 39. was because "perceived" friend Governor Connecticut, whom were feuding labor issues. 4 Concerning June 15, 1996, several ordered cell, "placed wall struck hands, kneed back, [and] pulled hair." attack unprovoked unjustified, told kill if reported 5 Then, now, provided system 5-18. Under system, grievances filed 30 days "occurrence." 11. Rules governing include provisions confidentiality reprisals. 6 17-18. 7 10, 1999, 1983; suit three-year statute limitations ran claim.1 charged, principally, assault violated right free cruel punishment Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment. Court, failure remedies. Willette, 3:99CV1091(AHN) (D Conn., Nov. 22, 1999), 43. 8 Construing narrowly "to rule non-exhaustion cases," judgment; "exhaustion [prisoner] 1983." 106 (2000). requires inmates' conditions," contains definition term "scarcely ambiguity." 101.2 concluded, most appropriately mean " 'circumstances everyone area,' 'single momentary matter[s],' beatings directed individuals." (quoting 206 289, 300-301 (CA3 2000) (Noonan, concurring dissenting), aff'd grounds, 731 (2001)). 9 position history. Floor statements "overwhelmingly suggest[ed]" sought curtail qualifying "subject matter," "insufficient storage locker space," defective haircut," "being served chunky peanut butter instead creamy variety." F.3d, 105 (internal quotation marks omitted). Actions brutality, stressed, genre. Further, "disaggregate[d] Amendment [for purposes] 'excessive force' hand, 'conditions confinement' other." (citing (1992), 825 (1994)). 10 conflict Circuit, Courts determined alleging assaults guards meet commencing civil action. Smith Zachary, 255 446 (CA7 2001); Higginbottom Carter, 223 1259 (CA11 2000); 289 Freeman Francis, 196 641 (CA6 1999). granted certiorari resolve intercircuit conflict, 1065 (2001), reverse judgment. II 11 Ordinarily, plaintiffs pursuing Patsy Board Regents Fla., 457 496, 516 (1982). Prisoner constitutional deprivations fell rule. Wilwording Swenson, 404 249, 251 (1971) (per curiam). 1980, introduced prescription initiated Civil Rights Institutionalized Persons 94 352, ed.). measure authorized courts stay "for period exceed 180 days" exhausted "plain, speedy, effective remedies." 1997e(a)(1). Exhaustion 1980 large part discretionary; State's met specified standards, even then, if, case, believed "appropriate interests justice." (b). described "limited requirement" Madigan, 140, 150-151 thought inapplicable damages monetary unavailable system. 13 1995, prescription. revised titled "Suits states: V). 14 discretion covered 739 (2001). All "available" exhausted; nor effective." ibid.; 740, 5. Even seeks proceedings, notably money damages, prerequisite suit. 741. "any law." Compare ed.) Thus suing Bivens Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388 (1971), just processes instituting 15 Beyond doubt, enacted suits; purpose, afforded Booth, "filter claims." adjudication facilitated clarifies controversy. 146. 16 us determine means, given Congress' define provision.3 endeavor 1997e.4 17 As precedent, 136 (1991), 28 636(b)(1)(B) (1988 ed.), Judicial Code authorizing judges, inter alia, confinement."5 petitioning argued allowed referrals "only challenges ongoing 138. targeted "ongoing conditions"; homed "an incident" reason, according petitioner, referral impermissible. 138-139. 18 "quarrel with" assertion "the natural reading 'challenging confinement,' viewed isolation, conduct." nonetheless petitioner's argument upon "in context." suggestion divide "into subcategories." "On contrary," we observed, "when entirety, suggests intended authorize magistrate." noted, two kinds: "conditions confinement"; "applications habeas corpus relief." 140. "intended entirety th[ose] primary categories prisoners." 19 "Just three years [636(b)(1)(B)] drafted," explained "our 475 (1973), [the] petitions: (1) fact duration itself; (2) confinement." left further stated embraced construction exclude." 141. "that parallel[ed] opinion." 142. well Act-to caseload judges-would opening door suggested cases." 20 here captioned 1997e; unqualified heading scarcely aids bisect universe suits. Almendarez-Torres 523 224, 234 (1998) ("[T]he title tools resolution doubt statute." omitted)). 21 generally "presume[s] th[e] precedents." 495 (1997). That presumption, 22 places 835-836 (1994), well, 106. sustain show injury. 9. ruling, indeed claims; "significant injury" shown. 8-9. observed succeed demonstrates acted "deliberate indifference," 298 (1991)), demonstrate defendant "maliciously sadistically cause harm." Hudson, 7. similarly distinguished shown prevail claim, i.e., "purposeful knowing conduct," lesser indifference." question attendant made. But presented different order. 23 trained solely precisely requirements us: 1997e(a). Such extension highly anomalous elimination dispense deletion former constraint effective" required. supra, 6; 739; cf. 740-741 ("Congress's imposition obviously broader makes implausible give strong inducement skip limiting prayers offered mechanisms."). 24 contends added specifically exempt mandatory requirement; sees mainly 'prison conditions' Brief 2, 26-27. plausible, Title VII employer, or, matter, 25 exhausted, other, 26-27, "[e]xcessive frivolous," Smith, 452 ("Inmates vicious nudges."), allegations, 6-7. 26 143 ("Petitioner's generate additional work acts misconduct will often difficult identify."). emphasized, environment 27 An unwarranted reflective problem traceable poor hiring practices, inadequate training, insufficient supervision. 449. himself very suffered 1996; alleged, extending after date, correction officers." 489-490 ("It wholly frustrate explicit congressional intent hold [prisoners] evade [exhaustion] simple expedient putting label pleadings."). view moreover, bifurcation Tr. Oral Arg. 31. alone court; charge Similarly split apparently order, decision, elects pursue same discrete instance charges. 29 emphasize above complexity augured disposition: Scant Why should immediate access occasion, widespread routine? 450. presents similar anomaly. Do authorities somehow wrongdoing? 492 ("Since problems prisons issues peculiarly authority expertise, important being problems.").6 31 reasons stated, Wilson, Accordingly, judgment remanded consistent opinion. 32 ordered. Notes has governed tort actions. Williams Walsh, 558 F.2d 667, 670 (1977). Another 3626(g)(2) does 101 (CA2 2000). prospective relief, defines effects government lives persons prison." "no ambiguous" bare Neither alternative formulations, said, "everyday" speech describe "particular instances force." 102. 294-295 2000), (2001) (reading cover "make [prisoners'] worse"). improper, event, automatically import 3626(g)(2)'s "definition 'civil 1997e(a)" "distinct statutory purposes." 105. parties dispute simultaneously 3626(g)(2), expression "civil 3, (noting, divergent constructions Third Circuits). rest decision 1997e, express definitive 3626(g)(2). reaching "obligation construe exceptions narrowly, full effect City Edmonds Oxford House, Inc., 514 725, 731-732 (1995), 508 (1982)). then subsequently rendered mandates initial recourse remedy "Congress shortsighted" failing recognize utility satisfy, reduce, clarify grievances. While canon relied dependable contexts, establishes regime. compass, replaced "general non-exhaustion" exhaustion. provides part: "(b)(1) Notwithstanding law contrary- . judge designate hearings, submit proposed findings recommendations disposition, applications posttrial individuals convicted criminal offenses scope term. 1997e(c)(1) dismissal own initiative "frivolous [or] malicious." No implicate 1997e(f)(1) pretrial via telephone, video conference, telecommunications technology physically transferred participate. Surely arrangements appropriate others these practical like qualify regarding conditions"?

Category: 8