1 / 33

Constitutional Rights of Inmates Chapter 14 Prison Litigation Reform Act

Constitutional Rights of Inmates Chapter 14 Prison Litigation Reform Act. Prison Litigation Reform Act. Since 1960s number of prisoner civil rights lawsuits has grown steadily Only a few hundred filed in federal courts in 1960s Over 24,000 filed in 1988 Over 41,000 filed in 1996

kent
Télécharger la présentation

Constitutional Rights of Inmates Chapter 14 Prison Litigation Reform Act

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Constitutional Rights of Inmates Chapter 14 Prison Litigation Reform Act

  2. Prison Litigation Reform Act • Since 1960s number of prisoner civil rights lawsuits has grown steadily • Only a few hundred filed in federal courts in 1960s • Over 24,000 filed in 1988 • Over 41,000 filed in 1996 • Prisoner suits made up over 15% of federal civil caseload

  3. Most Suits Had No Merit • Temperature of food • Whether inmate’s hair could be cut by unlicensed barber • Prisoner given Converse shoes instead of Reebok shoes • 70% of suits had no merit • 9th Circuit estimated 99% had no merit

  4. Cost of Prisoner Suits • Most suits filed by indigent inmates with no filing fee • Cost of defense by state and federal governments • Opportunity cost of government • Time spent by prison officials to confer with attorneys • Time spent by officials in responding to discovery, depositions

  5. Cost of Prisoner Suits • Judicial resources • Judge • Law clerks • Case coordinators • Court clerks, bailiffs, etc. • Delays caused to other cases

  6. Inmate Motivation • Travel to court for hearing • Entertainment • Revenge • Not understand law • A few did have good motivation to right a wrong • Pro se inmates sometimes lie and create facts to fit a prior case

  7. Judicial Response • Some courts went overboard • Orders resulted in excessive court supervision of prisons • Appointment of “special masters” • who answered only to court • paid by state • Orders to release prisoners to relieve overcrowding

  8. Congressional Legislation • Legislation enacted by Congress limited federal court power to enter orders related to overcrowding (Violent Crime Control Act of 1994) • Prisoner had to show overcrowding resulted in cruel and unusual punishment • Relief could be ordered only as necessary to remove unconstitutional conditions • Court could not impose population caps unless overcrowding resulted in cruel and unusual punishment of identified prisoners • Court could award equitable relief for cruel and unusual punishment other than overcrowding

  9. Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA) 18 USC § 3626 • Act part of Balanced Budget Down Payment Act without hearings • Act limits power of federal judges to enter orders relating to prisons

  10. PLRA • Reduces judicial power to order release of prisoners to relieve overcrowding • Court may not order release unless court had previously ordered relief that failed to correct the problem • Prisoner release order must be by three-judge panel • Requires court to find by clear and convincing evidence that overcrowding is cause of federal right violation and no other relief will correct problem

  11. PLRA • Imposes time limits for judges remedial orders • Preliminary injunctive orders must expire in 90 days • Court may extend the time upon specific findings • Court ordered prospective relief terminates within two years of entry of order; or one year after denial of request for termination of relief • (even applies to orders entered prior to effective date of act)

  12. PLRA • Requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit • Allows court to dismiss case without pursuing administrative remedies if complaint appears to be frivolous or fails to state a cause of action • Court may dismiss case that seeks damages from one who is immune from suit without pursuing administrative remedies

  13. PLRA • Provides more influence for parties regarding who appointed special master • Each party nominates 5 persons • Each party may strike 3 of other party’s nominees • Judge selects master from remaining nominees • Places cost of special master on court rather than on state

  14. PLRA • Restrictions on waiver of filing fee for indigent inmates • Inmate must pay partial fee based upon funds in his account • Allows fees to be paid in future installments from inmate account • Fee must be paid even if court dismisses case • No inmate shall be denied filing because of no funds

  15. PLRA • Requires court to review cases filed by prisoners • Before docketing if possible • Or as soon a possible after docketing • Applies to indigent and non-indigent plaintiffs

  16. PLRA Litigation-Filing Fees • In re Nagy, 89 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1996) • Filing fee requirements apply to civil actions, not apply to writs directed to judges in criminal actions • Filing fees do not violate equal protection clause • Filing fee requirements not apply to petitions for writ of habeas corpus • Filing fee intended to cover 1983 complaints and federal tort claims cases • Filing fee requirement required for petition for writ of mandamus

  17. PLRA 3-Strikes • Limits suits where inmate has three prior suits dismissed for lack of merit, or failed to state a cause of action • Inmate with 3 strikes must pay filing fee in full in advance • Exception, if inmate is under imminent danger of serious physical injury

  18. PLRA Litigation-3 Strikes • 10th Circuit held this was a procedural rule and not a substantive rule which could be applied to cases dismissed prior to the PLRA • Case presently before the court does not count

  19. PLRA Litigation-3 Strikes • Not apply to habeas corpus actions • Habeas cases are not like other civil cases • PLRA should not effect traditional habeas petition • Effective Death Penalty Act passed at same time as PLRA included separate procedures to deal with abuse of habeas corpus. (Indicates legislative intent for PLRA not to apply to habeas)

  20. PLRA Litigation-3 Strikes • 3 dismissal limit not apply only to suits filed in forma pauperis • Suits must have been filed by person while a prisoner • (5th Circuit remanded a case for determination of whether the prior suits were filed while he was in custody)

  21. PLRA Litigation-Time Limit On Orders • Michigan District Court held this provision of act violated separation of powers and was unconstitutional. • 6th Circuit reversed holding that act allowed courts to exercise equitable powers by extending injunctive orders upon showing of good cause • Arizona District Court found provision unconstitutional intrusion of Congress into power of judiciary • Supreme Court held act does not violate separation of powers. Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000)

  22. PLRA Litigation-Exhaustion Administrative Remedies • PLRA designed to decrease quantity of prisoner suits • PLRA designed to increase quality of prisoner suits • Exhaustion of administrative remedies gives prison administration opportunity to address problems internally before involving courts • If problem not solved, state has chance before intervention of federal court • Administrative reviews also help screen frivolous cases

  23. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001)

  24. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2004)

  25. Woodford, et al. v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006)

  26. PLRA Litigation-Physical Injury Requirement • Applies to suits claiming mental or emotional damage • Must be physical injury element • Touching not enough (Evans v. Allen, 981 F.Supp.1102 (N.D.Ill. 1997) • Case dismissed where only physical contact was bodily fluids being thrown on inmate

  27. PLRA • May not sue US or agent or employee for emotional injury unless there is a physical injury

  28. Attorney Fee Limits • Limits amount of attorney fees court can award a successful prisoner. • If inmate is awarded money judgment, he must pay up to 25% of the award to the attorney toward fee.

  29. Attorney Fee Limits • Fee award to be paid by losing defendant cannot exceed 150% of judgment • If fee award does not exceed 150% of judgment, then defendant must pay the balance.

  30. Attorney Fee Limits • Hourly rate used a calculating fee award to be paid by losing defendant must not exceed 150% of hourly rate under the Criminal Justice Act (governs court appointed attorneys in criminal cases)

  31. Attorney Fee Limits • Greatest impact on cases involving nominal damages • example Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001) • upheld attorney fee capped at $1.50 when plaintiff was awarded $1.00 in damages.

  32. Effect of PLRA • 41,000 prisoner civil rights suits filed in 1996 • 1997 this declined to 28,000 • But habeas corpus cases increased from 16,000 in 1996 to 21,000 in 1997

More Related