Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 910 (2007) Lorenzo L. JONES, Petitioner, v. Barbara BOCK, Warden, et al. Timothy Williams, William Overton Nos. 05-7058, 05-7142. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 30, 2006. Decided January 22, 2007. *913 Jean-Claude Andre, Los Angeles, CA, appointed by this Court, for petitioners. Linda M. Olivieri, respondents. Counsel Record, Ivey, Smith & Ramirez, *914 Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion Court. In an effort to address large number prisoner complaints filed in federal court, Congress enacted Prison Litigation Reform Act 1995 (PLRA), 110 Stat. 1321-71, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e seq. Among other reforms, PLRA mandates early judicial screening and requires prisoners exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit. 28 1915A; 1997e(a). The Sixth Circuit, along with some lower courts, adopted several procedural rules designed implement exhaustion requirement facilitate screening. These require a allege demonstrate his complaint, permit suit only against defendants who were identified grievance, courts dismiss entire action if fails satisfy any single claim complaint. Other declined adopt such rules. We granted certiorari resolve conflict now conclude that these are not required PLRA, crafting imposing them exceeds proper limits on role. I Prisoner litigation continues "account outsized share filings" district courts. Woodford Ngo, 548 U.S. ___, n. 4, 126 2378 (2006) (slip op., at 12, 4). 2005, nearly 10 percent all civil cases nationwide challenging conditions or claiming rights violations.[1] Most have no merit; many frivolous. Our legal system, however, remains committed guaranteeing claims illegal conduct their custodians fairly handled according law. challenge lies ensuring flood nonmeritorious does submerge effectively preclude consideration allegations merit. See Neitzke 490 319, 327, 109 1827, 104 Ed. 2d 338 (1989). addressed PLRA. What country needs, decided, is fewer better suits. Porter Nussle, 534 516, 524, 122 983, 152 12 (2002) (PLRA intended "reduce quantity improve quality suits"). To end, variety reforms filter out bad good. Key among was inmates complaining about remedies initiating lawsuit. provision states: "No shall be brought respect under [42 1983], Federal law, confined jail, prison, correctional facility until administrative available exhausted." Requiring allows officials opportunity disputes concerning exercise responsibilities being haled into court. This has potential reduce inmate suits, also *915 suits producing useful record. Woodford, supra, 12). attempt requirement, imposed become subject varying levels disagreement appeals. first question presented centers over whether pleading must complaint affirmative defense defendant plead prove.[2] adopting former view, attach proof exhaustiontypically copies grievancesto avoid dismissal. If written record available, specificity how when he exhausted procedures. Knuckles El Toombs, 215 F.3d 640, 642 (2000). next issue concerns determine properly remediesspecifically, level detail put individual notice claim. Circuit identified, step process, each later named lawsuit remedies. Burton Jones, 321 569, 575 (2003). circuits taken approaches question, see, e.g., Butler Adams, 397 1181, 1183 (C.A.9 2005) (proper use process provided State; identification specific persons, neither PLRA); Johnson Johnson, 385 503, 522 (C.A.5 2004) ("[T]he provide administrators fair circumstances problem will form basis suit"); Riccardo Rausch, 375 521, 524 (C.A.7 (exhaustion satisfied "served its function alerting state inviting corrective action"), none going far requiring every case been from beginning process. Finally, divided what both unexhausted included complaint.[3] Some circuits, including *916 apply "total exhaustion" rule, which part may proceed exhausted. See, Jones Bey 407 801, 805 (C.A.6 2005). total there further do met. allow amend include claims, Kozohorsky Harmon, 332 1141, 1144 (C.A.8 2003), but denies leave amend, dismisses action, it anew Baxter Rose, 305 486, 488 (2002); Bey, 807. McGore Wrigglesworth, 114 601, 612 (1997). reject altogether, instead dismissing considering rest merits. Ortiz McBride, 380 649, 663 (C.A.2 2004). A Petitioners custody Michigan Department Corrections (MDOC). At time petitioners grievances, MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 (Nov. 1, 2000) set forth applicable 1 App. 138-157.[4] policy directive describes issues grievable contains instructions processing grievances. Inmates orally within two business days becoming aware issue. Id., 147. oral resolution unsuccessful, Step submit completed five attempted resolution. 147, 149-150. (a one-page fills identifying information given space describe complaint) advises "brief concise describing your issue." 2 id., 1. submits designated coordinator, assigns respondent generally supervisor person grieved. 150. dissatisfied response, appeal II obtaining submitting form. 152. respondent policy, 152-153 (e.g., regional health administrator medical care grievances). still after II, III using same form; director 154. Petitioner incarcerated MDOC's Saginaw Correctional Facility. November 2000, while custody, involved vehicle accident suffered significant injuries neck back. Several months work assignment allegedly could perform light injuries. According Paul Morrisonin charge assignments prisonmade inappropriate assignment, even though knew Jones's When reported informed staff member chargerespondent Michael Opanasenkothat *917 work; Opanasenko told him "`suffer consequences.'" 20. performed tasks aggravated After unsuccessfully seeking redress through Eastern District 1983 deliberate indifference retaliation, harassment. defendants, addition Morrison Opanasenko, respondents Bock (the warden), Valerie Chaplin deputy Janet Konkle registered nurse), Ahmad Aldabaugh physician). Magistrate recommended dismissal failure Bock, Chaplin, Konkle, Aldabaugh, agreed. Ohio 41. With proceed, finding had those two. 18-29. disagreed. dates various steps He did not, forms proceedings specificity. Respondents attached grievances own motion dismiss, Judge ruled meet burden cured 42. agreed, holding failed comply requirements applied 135 Fed. Appx. 837, 839 (2005) (per curiam) (citing El, F.3d, 642), that, shown Fed.Appx., 806). Williams Adrian suffers noninvoluting cavernous hemangiomas right arm, condition causes pain, immobility, disfigurement limb, undergone surgeries. An physician surgery pain relief, Medical Services denied recommendation (and subsequent appeals doctor) ground danger outweighed benefits, viewed cosmetic. Advisory Committee upheld decision. indicated would take request advisement, objecting authorization surgery. another single-occupancy handicapped cell, necessary accommodate condition. stages, 1983, naming (former MDOC), David Jamrog Mary Jo Pass Klee (assistant wardens), Chad Markwell (corrections officer), Bonnie Peterson (health unit manager), Dr. George Pramstaller (chief officer MDOC). found regard because during *918 process.[5] Although Williams's cell exhausted, Judgeapplying ruledismissed affirmed. 136 859, 861-863 Burton, 574, Curry Scott, 249 493, 504-505 2001), 805). John Walton Alger Maximum assaulting guard, sanctioned indefinite "upper slot" restriction.[6] later, upon learning upper slot restrictions three infraction, disparity result racial discrimination (Walton black, white). denied, Western race discrimination. Bouchard Ken Gearin, Bergh, Ron Bobo Catherine Bauman (resident Denise Gerth resident supervisor). dismissed than grievance. His thus court rule. affirmed, reiterating "file ultimately seeks sue," Curry, 505, can Because Bobo, affirmed Court's action. Fed.Appx. 846, 848-849 (2005). B sought review petition certiorari, arguing Circuit's heightened rule contravene clear language Rules Civil Procedure joint Rule 12.4, contending petitions 547 1463, 164 246 (2006), consolidated our review. There mandatory *919 cannot Porter, U.S., 983. less falls raise lack defense. minority places covered prisoner; most view 2, supra. think petitioners, majority consider argument. 8(a) simply "short plain statement claim" 8(c) identifies nonexhaustive list defenses pleaded response. itself source prisoner's claim; typically all, see Patsy Board Regents Fla., 457 496, 102 2557, 73 172 (1982). assert contexts, Brief 34-36, nn. 12-13 cases), seriously dispute general proposition. referred terms, Wright Universal Maritime Service Corp., 525 70, 75, 119 391, 142 361 (1998) (referring "failure exhaust" "affirmative defens[e]"), similar statutory scheme governing habeas corpus, Day McDonough, 1675 8) "defense"). dealt extensively exhaustion, §§ 1997e(a), (c)(2), silent plaintiff strong evidence usual practice should followed, series recent cases, we explained depart perceived concerns. Thus, Leatherman Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence Coordination Unit, 507 163, 113 1160, 517 (1993), unanimously reversed standard municipalities. "[p]erhaps [the] Rules. . rewritten today, municipalities might subjected added requirement. But obtained amending Rules, interpretation." 168, 1160. Swierkiewicz Sorema N.A., 506, 992, (2002), employment plaintiffs specifically elements prima facie "the contain suits," "requirement greater particular claims" 515, 992 Leatherman). And just last Term, Hill 2096, 165 44 rejected proposal method execution identify acceptable alternative: "Specific mandated Procedure, case-by-case determinations *920 courts." 2096 Swierkiewicz). contend "new regime" effectively, treated outside typical framework. Baxter, 489. explain new departed fundamental way claims: Courts screen "before docketing, feasible, soon practicable docketing," "frivolous, malicious, relief granted[,] monetary immune relief." 1915A(a), (b). All place responsive filed unlike case, respond so waiving reply constitute admission 1997e(g)(1), (2). respondents, departures normal framework response mandate different complaints, serve purpose. 489 ("This court's standards Act's requirements. ."); 642. 17. PLRA's notexplicitly implicitlyjustify deviating beyond specified itself. Before forma pauperis 1915, litigation, permitted sua sponte frivolous malicious. 1915(d) (1994 ed.); Neitzke, 320, 1827 (concluding sponte). grounds 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000 ed.), four grounds, 1915A(b); 1997e(c)(1). "centerpiece" 1-2), notably terms enumeration. reason suppose altered exhaust. subsumed enumerated authorizing "fail[ure] granted." 1915A(b)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B); 489; Steele Bureau Prisons, 355 1204, 1210 (C.A.10 2003); Rivera Allin, 144 719, 731 (C.A.11 1998). point bit red herring. allegations, true, show entitled relief. example, barred statute limitations, *921 make limitations defense, Civ. Proc. 8(c). Whether opposing depends suffice establish ground, nature abstract. Leveto Lapina, 258 156, 161 (C.A.3 2001) ("[A] 12(b)(6) ... appears face" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Lopez-Gonzalez Municipality Comerio, 404 548, 551 (C.A.1 (dismissing 12(b)(6)); Pani Empire Blue Cross Shield, 67, 74-75 1998) official immunity 12(b)(6)). 5B C. A. Miller, Practice 1357, pp. 708-710, 721-729 (3d ed.2004). Determining meant rubric provisions support treating rather argument more effective proves too much; said rejoinder focused highlights justifying As noted, say It concluding implicitly transform curiously indirect route specifying fail 1997e(g) confirming supports specifies waive without consequence deemed admitted 1997e(g)(1) (allowing admitting "[n]otwithstanding law procedure"). shows requirements, expressly. specially complaints. understand reasons behind decisions impose context, interpretation "Whatever temptations statesmanship policy-making wisely suggest," judge's job construe statutenot better. Frankfurter, Reflections Reading Statutes, 47 Colum. L.Rev. 527, 533 (1947). judge "must read creation," abide "duty restraint, th[e] humility merely translator another's command." 533-534. States Goldenberg, 168 95, 103, 18 3, 394 (1897) ("No mere omission seem wise for, justif[ies] *922 statute"). Given Leatherman, threw initial they sued. 862-863; 848-849. 575.[7] Here again lacks textual "such available," nothing imposes "name defendants" lines judicially created argue "`useless appendage,'" (quoting 11)), assertion hyperbole, citation misplaced. held "proper missed deadlines policy. 11-13). here filed, contrast, "be possible" 148, advised "[b]e brief concise." responsible party, necessarily culpable official, types levels. Supra, 6. provides grievant "shall completely [an] interview, enabling gather additional needed grievance." 151. Nothing conclusion improperly invoked Nor "complete accordance rules," 5)rules defined Compliance procedures, *923 therefore, "properly exhaust." vary system claim, prison's define boundaries exhaustion. mention officials, prerequisite unwarranted. benefits allowing program administers suit, reducing extent satisfactorily resolved, improving occur leading preparation 6-8); 524-525, promote sued, thought one purposes ("We mindful primary purpose alert problem, personal sued; summons initiates adversarial litigation"); American Liberties Union Amici Curiae 8-9, 6 (collecting noting individuals). exhaustion," 11), per se inadequate sued below instance sufficiency cases. IV final some, asserted complaint.[8] agree considered. insteadas helddismiss 807.[9] Section 1997e(a) "[n]o brought" unless retaining balance lawsuit, word *924 "claim" "action" used provision. phrasing"no brought"is boilerplate language. instances Code where used, lead pertinent standards. Statutes often introduced variant phrase "no brought," Beach Ocwen Bank, 523 410, 416, 118 1408, 140 566 (1998); 1030(g) ed., Supp. IV), never heard thrown discrete hard imagine serve. true uses phrasing. Hawksbill Sea Turtle Emergency Management Agency, 461, 471 1997) citizen notification 16 1540(g)(2), states commenced" agency act notice). More generally, references mean proceed. Exxon Mobil Corp. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 546, 560-563, 125 2611, 162 502 (District jurisdiction "civil action" 1367(a), separate comprising action); Chicago International College Surgeons, 166, 523, 139 (1997) removed jurisdictional prerequisites). matter, good proceeds leaves bad. "[O]nly dismissed; whole not. norm, expect indication find none." Robinson Page, 170 747, 748-749 1999) (considering 1997e(e)). note exception corpus. Rose Lundy, 455 509, 522, 1198, 71 379 (1982), "mixed" petitionscontaining claimscannot adjudicated. initially derived considerations "comity federalism," command. Rhines Weber, 544 269, 273, 1528, 440 (2005); 274, 1528 (noting "preserved Lundy's requirement" 2254(b)(1)(A)). Separate seek success another. makes sense multiple hand, combine wide interactions guards, conditions, rules, on, affects other. event, pertinent, fact practiceas recently held, *925 mixed "should petitioner delete ...." Rhines, 278, 1528. opposite adopted, precisely against. Respondents' reading bolstered sections distinguish between actions claims. 1997e(c)(1), deficiencies, 1997e(c)(2) determining Similarly, 1915A(b) directs portion complaint" docketing certain circumstances. demonstrates differentiate wanted to, suggests effect. advocate creates inconsistencies. 1997e(e) language, mental emotional injury prior showing physical injury," yet cite interpreting comply, little approach. Accord, Cassidy Indiana Dept. Corrections, 199 374, 376-377 portions 1997e(e)); Ollis, 230 1361 (unpublished table decision) (same). Interpreting construction. National Credit Admin. First Nat. Bank Trust Co., 479, 501-502, 927, (1998). pressing argument, marshal underlying PLRAthis supporting invigorated statute, effectuated argue, incentive ensure proceeding courts; promptly alternative approach turns judges editors creating properly. Ross Bernalillo, 365 1190 persuaded arguments. fact, effect file possibility tainting others. That certainly comport Additionally, delve realize begin *926 refiles. short limits, prisoners' refiled identical considered encountered proceeded ones. Perhaps fees applicability "three strikes" 1915(g), mitigate effects, debate consequences close enough claim-by-claim * insensitive challenges faced managing dockets attempting separate, comes much wheat chaff needles haystacks. once reiterate, howeveras Swierkiewicz, Hillthat onerous deal categories done established rulemaking judgments Appeals reversed, remanded consistent opinion. ordered. NOTES [1] Administrative Office Courts, Judicial Facts Figures, Tables 4.4, 4.6, http://www.uscourts.gov/ judicialfactsfigures/contents.html (as visited Jan. 17, 2007, Clerk file). excludes corpus motions vacate sentence. included, constituted 24 filings 2005. [2] Compare 2003) (pleading requirement); Brown 1102, 1104 (same); (same), Anderson XYZ Health Servs., 674, 681 (C.A.4 (affirmative defense); Wyatt Terhune, 315 1108, 1119 Casanova Dubois, 304 77, 3 2002) Ray Kertes, 285 287, 295 Foulk Charrier, 262 687, 697 Massey Helman, 196 727, 735 Jenkins Haubert, 179 19, 28-29 7 deciding question); Jackson Columbia, 254 262, 267 (C.A.D.C.2001) (treating defense). [3] (requiring present); 1189 Vazquez Ragonese, 606, 607 Lira Herrera, 427 1164, 1175 claims); Lewis Washington, 300 829, 835 5 (suggesting open Fifth Circuit). [4] since revised (effective Dec. 1b. [5] mentioned apparently served stated nonetheless 86, 101. Pramstaller, III, 4; 7, infra. served, [6] restriction receiving food paperwork via door. 5-6. Presumably, desirable access slot; reveal sanction discouraging assaults staff. [7] applies learn identity party Upon bring entirely 849 ("At [after learned, Gearin restriction], armed Gearin exhaustedbut chose follow route"). least application Tr. Oral Arg. 44-45. [8] reverse rulings substantive contemplated moot. ("[E]ven claims"). [9] suggested adoption ran contrary previous panel therefore controlling. Spencer Bouchard, 449 721, 726 (2006). 206(c) (CA6 2006). review, concern ourselves possible intracircuit split.

Classification Label: 0