Ross v. Blake
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kagan
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) mandates that an inmate exhaust "such administrative remedies as *1855 are available" before bringing suit to challenge prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The court below adopted an unwritten "special circumstances" exception to that provision, permitting some prisoners to pursue litigation even when they have failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. Today, we reject that freewheeling approach to exhaustion as inconsistent with the PLRA. But we also underscore that statute's built-in exception to the exhaustion requirement: A…
Also in this document: Concurring in the judgment; Concurrence.
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Jones v. BockSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Woodford v. NgoSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Porter v. NussleSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- McNeil v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Booth v. ChurnerSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4,415 opinions
- Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Fry v. Napoleon Community SchoolsSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
- Michael Rinaldi v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018
- Robert Downey v. Pennsylvania Department of CorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2020
- Williams v. Correction Officer PriatnoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016
4,410 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.