"Providing effective legal services efficiently and with excellence."

The Prison Litigation Reform Act:
A New Chapter in Prison Law

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Pub.L. No. 104-134, Stat. 1321 §§ 801-810 (April 24, 1996), amended, Pub. L. No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 240 (November 26, 1997), has dramatically changed the legal landscape of prisoner litigation.

Two major provisions of this act affect the plaintiff-petitioner's burden in a class action challenge to prison conditions [18 U.S.C. § 3626] and the ability of prisoners to make individual claims arising out of the conditions of their confinement.

Remedies

The first of these new provisions limits the ability of federal courts to order remedies to proven constitutional violations. PLRA states that remedies designed to rectify unconstitutional condition (called prospective relief) "shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs." In addition, such orders "shall not be granted or approved . . .unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Even when prospective relief has been granted, there are new provisions that limit the duration of the order to a period of two years. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(A)(i). Or, such an order may be terminated by motion of any party one year after the denial of a prior termination motion. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(A)(ii). Finally, prospective relief can be terminated immediately if it was entered without findings that it "is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). See Tyler v. Murphy , 135 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir. 1998).

The termination provision has been applied in a major case affecting inmates in North Carolina. In 1986, The North Carolina Department of Correction was ordered to contract with NCPLS to provide legal assistance to inmates within the North Carolina prison system. Smith v. Bounds , 657 F. Supp. 1327 (1986); aff'd, Smith v. Bounds , 813 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir.1987); cert. denied, 488 U.S. 869 (1988). After PLRA was enacted, the Department of Correction moved that the order be terminated under the provisions of the Act. The United States District Court for North Carolina, Eastern Division, ruled terminated its earlier order because the court could was unable to conclude that "prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right." Smith v. Freeman, (5:72-CV-3052-F) slip opinion at p.6 (U.S.D.Ct., E.D.N.C.,19 June 1998), citing 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3).

Although no longer compelled to do so, the Department of Correction continues to contract with NCPLS in order to fulfill its ongoing constitutional obligation to provide access to the courts for inmates.

Physical Injury

Major changes caused by the PLRA affect the ability of an individual prisoner to litigate specific issues. For example, according to the Act, "no Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). This provision appears to conflict with the well established right to seek redress for constitutional violations, including, for example, intrusions upon liberty. For example, a person deprived of the right to practice his religion may suffer no "physical injury" in the sense of bodily harm.

In several cases, complaints about threats of violence or exposure to a risk of violence from others have been dismissed because no actual violence had occurred. See, for example, Tapia v. Sheahan, 1998 WL 919709 at *5 (N.D.Ill., Dec. 30, 1998); Flannery v. Wagner , 1998 WL 709762 at *1 (D.Kan., Aug. 10, 1998) (dismissing claim that prison officials spread rumors that subjected the plaintiff to a risk of assault, which did not occur.)

Types of claims barred by the "physical injury" language include claims based on placement or conditions in segregated confinement, Warren v. McDaniel , ___ F.3d ___ (unpublished), 1998 WL 823390 (9th Cir., Nov. 19, 1998)(dismissing claim of being housed with mentally disturbed prisoner); Williams v. Scott , 142 F.3d 441, 1998 WL 152969, 1998 U.S.App. LEXIS 6556 (7th Cir. 1998)(unpublished)(prisoner's claim that punishment for refusing to take a TB test on religious grounds violated the Eighth Amendment is barred); Valentino v. Jacobson , 1999 WL 14685 at *3 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 1999)(dismissing claims of psychological injury resulting from segregated confinement); Walker v. Hubbard , 1998 WL 2051 (N.D.Cal., Apr. 22, 1998)(dismissing complaint of being held in high-security unit in fear of life); Evans v. Allen, 981 F.Supp. 1102 (N.D.Ill. 1997)(dismissing claim of segregated confinement during which bodily fluids were thrown on plaintiff).

Filing Fees

A prisoner who wants to file a civil suit as a poor person (in forma pauperis) must submit certified statements of his prison account for the preceding six months and will be required to pay the entire filing fee in monthly installments. The filing fees will be sent by the prison from the prisoner's account. (The fees are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(17)). There is no such provision for any other class of people who are impoverished.

Even if a fee has been paid in full, cases may be dismissed if there has been a false allegation of indigency, if the action is deemed malicious or frivolous, if the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is entitled to claim immunity from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(e). See Leonard v. Lacy , 88 F.3d 181, 186 (2d Cir. 1996)(holding that liability for fees on appeal includes both $5 filing fee and $100 docketing fee).

The initial fee is 20% of the greater of the average monthly deposits or the average monthly balance for the preceding six months, which the court is to "assess and, when funds exist, collect." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). After the initial filing fee, monthly payments will be deducted from the prisoner's trust account at a rate of 20% of the preceding month's income, to be forwarded by the prison "each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). However, "in no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil or criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Three Strikes Provision

In addition to the filing fee, another important restriction concerns prisoners who have filed multiple lawsuits. risoners, under PLRA, may not proceed in forma pauperis in civil actions or appeals if, while they were incarcerated or detained, they have brought three of more prior actions or appeals in a court of the United States that were "dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim." 28 U.S.C. §1915. The only exception to this rule is when the inmate is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury." In such a case, the action may be filed.

The "three strikes" rule has withstood constitutional attack. Rodriguez v. Cook , 163 F.3d 584, 587-91 (10th Cir. 1998)(rejecting due process, equal protection, access to courts, Ex Post Facto Clause, and separation of powers arguments).

Damage Awards

Another provision concerns what happens to any award of damages that a prisoner receives if he successfully litigates a claim. Under PLRA, damage awards against prisons or their personnel shall be paid directly to satisfy any outstanding restitution orders, with the remainder forwarded to the prisoner. Stat. 1321 § 807.

Conclusion

NCPLS will continue to probe the legal contours of the Act, and engage in litigation consistent with the interests of our clients. However, the changes brought about by PLRA impacts every litigation decision made by NCPLS.