Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/pln-amicus-brief-pavey-v-conley-support-for-rehearing-en-banc-in-seventh-circuit-indiana-plra-administrative-exhaustion-case-2008/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:21:14+00:00

Document:
Robert L. Miller, Jr., Presiding.
a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed.
the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
Uptown People’s Law Center, Legal Aid Society of New York’s Prisoners’ Rights Project, D.C.
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d).
state prisons and New York City jails.
overall conditions at correctional facilities wherever D.C. inmates are held.
complaints administratively have full and fair access to the courts.
conditions and provides technical assistance to attorneys throughout the country.
throughout Texas, promotes racial, social, and economic justice through education and litigation.
rights, and a variety of other civil rights and liberties.
use of force and abuse cases.
prisoners. Approximately sixty-five percent of PLN subscribers are state and federal prisoners.
challenges is of vital interest to PLN, given the time sensitive nature of its publication.
resolve any factual disputes related to the exhaustion defense.
inmates seeking preliminary injunctive relief (for themselves or for others similarly situated).
preliminary discovery, such as limited discovery regarding the identity of unknown defendants.
course, and memories fade, the result will be the dismissal of meritorious claims.
overcrowding and understaffing in open dorms”).
enforcement of the consent decree).
immediate relief they requested during the period in which they litigated the exhaustion defense.
already empowered to stay discovery on the merits where appropriate. See Societe Nationale v.
determining the identity of the defendants.
much of the same briefing (and present the same evidence) at the merits stage of the case.
mandates an inflexible regime to fix a problem which does not exist.
hinder that process by removing any repercussions for obstructing prisoners’ access to court.
This requirement is impractical, inefficient, and unjust.
the practical ability to litigate any claims.
available. Rather, it requires that prisoners exhaust those remedies “as are available.” 42 U.S.C.
being dilatory and “fail[ing] to respond to inmate grievances,” Lewis v.
mishandling or failing to properly deliver a prisoner’s grievances, Dole v.
administrative remedies, Westefer v. Snyder, 422 F.3d 570, 580 (7th Cir.
misconduct, see Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir. 2006).
behalf to no avail); Lampkins v. Roberts, No. 06-0639, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22695, at *6 (S.D.
him from filing a grievance).
prisoners’ complaints and weeding out unmeritorious claims.
protecting prisoners who were subjected to retaliation for filing grievances and a lawsuit), cert.
prison hearing officers to act favorably towards fellow employees in disputes with prisoners).
retaliation and vulnerability felt by female inmates).
file a complaint within 14 calendar days after the occurrence giving rise to the complaint . . . .”).
outside the noted timeframes if it appears that there was an appropriate reason for the delay.”); Wis.
cause to excuse the untimeliness.”).
York v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 484-86 (1980).
Corrections, No. 96 C 6685, 1996 WL 613176, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 1996); Cage v. Smith, No.
F.3d 763, 772-774 (6th Cir. 2006) (new filing fee not required).
additional procedural requirements are applied to prisoners under the panel’s decision.

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.