Jones v. Bock

Decision Date22 January 2007
Docket NumberNos. 05-7058,05-7142.,s. 05-7058
Citation127 S.Ct. 910,549 U.S. 199,166 L.Ed.2d 798,75 USLW 4058
PartiesLorenzo L. JONES, Petitioner, v. Barbara BOCK, Warden, et al. Timothy Williams, Petitioner, v. William S. Overton et al.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus*

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), in order to address the large number of prisoner complaints filed in federal court, mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Petitioners, inmates in Michigan prisons, filed grievances using the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) grievance process. After unsuccessfully seeking redress through that process, petitioner Jones filed a § 1983 suit against six prison officials. The District Court dismissed on the merits as to four of them and as to two others found that Jones had failed to adequately plead exhaustion in his complaint. Petitioner Williams also filed a § 1983 suit after his two MDOC grievances were denied. The District Court found that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to one of the grievances because he had not identified any of the respondents named in the lawsuit during the grievance process. While the court found Williams's other claim properly exhausted, it dismissed the entire suit under the Sixth Circuit's total exhaustion rule for PLRA cases. Petitioner Walton's § 1983 lawsuit also was dismissed under the total exhaustion rule because his MDOC grievance named only one of the six defendants in his lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in each case, relying on its procedural rules that require a prisoner to allege and demonstrate exhaustion in his complaint, permit suit only against defendants identified in the prisoner's grievance, and require courts to dismiss the entire action if the prisoner fails to satisfy the exhaustion requirement as to any single claim in his complaint.

Held: The Sixth Circuit's rules are not required by the PLRA, and crafting and imposing such rules exceeds the proper limits of the judicial role. Pp. 918 - 926.

(a) Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA, and inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints. There is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12, but it is less clear whether the prisoner must plead and demonstrate exhaustion in the complaint or the defendant must raise lack of exhaustion as an affirmative defense. Failure to exhaust is better viewed as an affirmative defense. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires simply a “short and plain statement of the claim” in a complaint, and PLRA claims are typically brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which does not require exhaustion at all. The fact that the PLRA dealt extensively with exhaustion, but is silent on the issue whether exhaustion must be pleaded or is an affirmative defense, is strong evidence that the usual practice should be followed, and the practice under the Federal Rules is to regard exhaustion as an affirmative defense, including in the similar statutory scheme governing habeas corpus, Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 208, 126 S.Ct. 1675, 164 L.Ed.2d 376. Courts should generally not depart from the Federal Rules' usual practice based on perceived policy concerns. See, e.g., Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517. Those courts that require prisoners to plead and demonstrate exhaustion contend that prisoner complaints must be treated outside of the typical framework if the PLRA's screening requirement is to function effectively. But the screening requirement does not-explicitly or implicitly-justify deviating from the usual procedural practice beyond the departures specified by the PLRA itself. Although exhaustion was a “centerpiece” of the PLRA, Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 failure to exhaust was notably not added in terms to the enumerated grounds justifying dismissal upon early screening. Section 1997e(g)-which allows defendants to waive their right to reply to a prisoner complaint without being deemed to have admitted the complaint's allegations-shows that when Congress meant to depart from the usual procedural requirements, it did so expressly. Given that the PLRA does not itself require plaintiffs to plead exhaustion, such a result “must be obtained by ... amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation.” Leatherman, supra, at 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160. Pp. 918 - 922.

(b) Exhaustion is not per se inadequate under the PLRA when an individual later sued was not named in the grievance. Nothing in the MDOC policy supports the conclusion that the grievance process was improperly invoked because an individual later named as a defendant was not named at the first step of the process; at the time each grievance was filed here, the MDOC policy did not specifically require a prisoner to name anyone in the grievance. Nor does the PLRA impose such a requirement. The “applicable procedural rules” that a prisoner must properly exhaust, Woodford, supra, at 88, 126 S.Ct. 2378, are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself. As the MDOC's proceduresmake no mention of naming particular officials, the Sixth Circuit's rule imposing such a prerequisite to proper exhaustion is unwarranted. The Circuit's rule may promote early notice to those who might later be sued, but that has not been thought to be one of the leading purposes of the exhaustion requirement. The court below should determine in the first instance whether petitioners' grievances otherwise satisfied the exhaustion requirement. Pp. 921 - 923.

(c) The PLRA does not require dismissal of the entire complaint when a prisoner has failed to exhaust some, but not all, of the claims included in the complaint. Respondents argue that had Congress intended courts to dismiss only unexhausted claims while retaining the balance of the lawsuit, it would have used the word “claim” instead of “action” in § 1997e(a), which provides that [n]o action shall be brought” unless administrative procedures are exhausted. That boilerplate language is used in many instances in the Federal Code, and statutory references to an “action” have not typically been read to mean that every claim included in the action must meet the pertinent requirement before the “action” may proceed. If a complaint contains both good and bad claims, the court proceeds with the good and leaves the bad. Respondents note that the total exhaustion requirement in habeas corpus is an exception to this general rule, but a court presented with a mixed habeas petition typically “allow[s] the petitioner to delete the unexhausted claims and to proceed with the exhausted claims,” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440, which is the opposite of the rule the Sixth Circuit adopted, and precisely the rule that respondents argue against. Although other PLRA sections distinguish between actions and claims, respondents' reading of § 1997e(a) creates its own inconsistencies, and their policy arguments are also unpersuasive. Pp. 921 - 926.

No. 05-7058, 135 Fed.Appx. 837; No. 05-7142, 136 Fed.Appx. 846 (second judgment) and 859 (first judgment), reversed and remanded.

ROBERTS, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Jean-Claude Andre, Los Angeles, CA, appointed by this Court, for petitioners.

Linda M. Olivieri, for respondents.

Jean-Claude Andre, Counsel of Record, Ivey, Smith & Ramirez, Los Angeles, CA, for petitioners.

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In an effort to address the large number of prisoner complaints filed in federal court, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 110 Stat. 1321-71, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e et seq. Among other reforms, the PLRA mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Sixth Circuit, along with some other lower courts, adopted several procedural rules designed to implementthis exhaustion requirement and facilitate early judicial screening. These rules require a prisoner to allege and demonstrate exhaustion in his complaint, permit suit only against defendants who were identified by the prisoner in his grievance, and require courts to dismiss the entire action if the prisoner fails to satisfy the exhaustion requirement as to any single claim in his complaint. Other lower courts declined to adopt such rules. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict and now conclude that these rules are not required by the PLRA, and that crafting and imposing them exceeds the proper limits on the judicial role.

I

Prisoner litigation continues to “account for an outsized share of filings” in federal district courts. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94, n. 4, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006) (slip op., at 12, n. 4). In 2005, nearly 10 percent of all civil cases filed in federal courts nationwide were prisoner complaints challenging prison conditions or claiming civil rights violations.1 Most of these cases have no merit; many are frivolous. Our legal system, however, remains committed to guaranteeing that prisoner claims of illegal conduct by their custodians are fairly handled according to law. The challenge lies in ensuring that the flood of nonmeritorious claims does not submerge and effectively preclude consideration of the allegations with merit. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

Congress addressed that challenge in the PLRA. What this country needs, Congress decided, is fewer and better prisoner suits. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18739 cases
  • Lane v. Francis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • June 14, 2019
    ...Bivens or FTCA action, the Court must dismiss the unexhaustedclaims and proceed with the exhausted ones. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910, 913, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007)("The PLRA does not require dismissal of the entire complaint when a prisoner has failed to exhaust some, but n......
  • Ramadan v. Fbop, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-25757
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • August 27, 2015
    ...or FTCA action, the Court must dismiss the unexhausted claims and proceed with the exhausted ones. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910, 913, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007)("The PLRA does not require dismissal of the entire complaint when a prisoner has failed to exhaust some, but not all......
  • McCain v. United States, Corr. Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-92
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Vermont
    • March 17, 2015
    ...the pleading stage." Id. (citing DiPetto v. U.S. Postal Serv., 383 Fed App'x 102,104 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order)); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (holding that "inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion" under Prison Litigation Reform Act). Accordin......
  • Foster v. Sexton
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 16, 2021
    ...defense and "inmates are not required to specially pled or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints." (Jones v. Bock (2007) 549 U.S. 199, 216, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798.) Thus, in federal cases, "while the exhaustion requirement is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional" and need not be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
17 books & journal articles
  • Ratification as an Exception to the Section 1983 Causation Requirement: Plaintiff's Opportunity or Illusion?
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 89, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...clearly established at the time of the actions). But see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569 n.14 (2007); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212-14, 224 (2007) ("[A]dopting different and more onerous pleading rules to deal with particular categories of cases should be done through e......
  • PANDEMIC RULES: COVID-19 AND THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT'S EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 No. 3, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ..."42 USC 1997e(a)"--yields more cases than Westlaw will display; it tops out at 10,000. (21.) Ross, 578 U.S. at 648-49; Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 202-03 (2007); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84 (2006); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 520 (2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 733-34 (......
  • United States Supreme Court's 2006-2007 Term, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and a New Direction
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 36-3, May 2008
    • May 1, 2008
    ...legislation or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 120 114 Id. at 633 (majority opinion). 115 Id. at 637 (Thomas, J., dissenting). 116 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007). The companion case included in this opinion is Williams v. Overton . 117 Id. at 916–18. 118 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (2000). 119 Jones , 12......
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...A prisoner need not plead or prove exhaustion of remedies; rather, failure to exhaust is an aff‌irmative defense. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211-12 (2007); see, e.g., Ramos v. Patnaude, 640 F.3d 485, 488-89 (1st Cir. 2011) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies is aff‌irmative de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT