Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Harris v. Garner

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided June 27, 2000No. 98-8899Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part in which BIRCH, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, join:

The majority states that Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (passed as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (codified in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C. & 28 U.S.C.) (the “PLRA”)) “[i]n an effort to stem the flood of prisoner lawsuits in federal court.” Ante at 972. The majority opinion, however, will do just the opposite. For this reason, and because the majority’s interpretation of section 1997e(e) cannot be…

2Cases cited58 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981
  4. Hudson v. McMillianSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996

53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API