Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
The 1996 law designed to make it harder for prisoners to file civil rights suits — filing fees, exhaustion, and the physical injury requirement.
What It Is
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. § 1997e) imposes special restrictions on civil rights lawsuits filed by prisoners. Congress passed it in response to claims that prisoner litigation was clogging the courts. Critics argue it was designed to slam the courthouse door on people who are most vulnerable to government abuse.
Key Provisions
Exhaustion requirement (§ 1997e(a)): Prisoners must exhaust all available administrative remedies (grievance systems) before filing. See exhaustion of remedies.
Physical injury requirement (§ 1997e(e)): No federal civil action can be brought “for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” The injury must be more than de minimis. This means if guards psychologically torture you but never leave a mark, you may not recover compensatory damages.
Filing fees: Prisoners must pay the full filing fee, even if in installments. No waiver of fees for indigent prisoners — just a payment plan deducted from their prison account.
Three strikes rule (28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)): If you’ve had three prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, you can’t proceed in forma pauperis unless you’re in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
Screening: Courts must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss those that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from immune defendants.
Why It’s Brutal
The PLRA is one of the most effective barriers to civil rights litigation in the federal system:
- Grievance systems are controlled by the very institution you’re suing
- Physical injury requirements exclude pure constitutional violations (First Amendment, due process)
- Three strikes discourages any litigation, even meritorious claims
- Filing fees from commissary accounts deter claims by the poorest prisoners
The Workaround
After Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (2021), some courts have held that the physical injury requirement doesn’t bar claims for nominal damages — because nominal damages vindicate the right itself, not the emotional injury.
Key Cases
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) — “Proper exhaustion” required
- Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) — Only “available” remedies must be exhausted
- Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 590 U.S. 661 (2020) — Dismissal without prejudice counts as a “strike”