Court Opinion

ID: 9491969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:28:58.27796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:02.410868
License: Public Domain

EVANS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join Judge Easterbrook’s opinion but wonder aloud why this sort of administrative/proeedural detail under the PLRA has to be so complicated. I’d say that when an experienced district judge — and Judge Mihm is certainly that — is reversed three times in the same case on a little point like this, something is rotten in Denmark. Is this what Congress intended? I don’t think so. I always thought the PLRA was supposed to make the handling of prisoner litigation more efficient. If that’s its goal, and this sort of thing is its result, Congress should go back to the drawing board. Substituting “frivolous” for “good faith” in § 1915(a)(3) would be a good place to start.