The Prison Litigation Reform Act Essay Example

impact of the PLRA on prisoners and the courts? At the outset, there must be a clear understanding of what the exhaustion requirement actually means for an inmate.

That provision of the PLRA prevents an inmate from filing suit unless he or she has exhausted the internal grievance procedures available at the prison - even if those internal systems are slow and ineffective, and may also subject the prisoner to possible retaliation by prison staff. According to the ACLU, a prisoner must exhaust the facility’s internal procedures even if a prison’s administrative system does not meet minimum federal standards and fails to provide speedy and effective remedies for the prisoner. Porter 534)

This policy must even be followed in prison facilities that have a proven history of denying all claims brought by inmates. (Perez 182) Although prisoners featured or portrayed on television, in movies, or by the news media often appear to be well educated and intelligent, the National Center for Education Statistics reported in 1994 that seven out of ten prisoners perform at the lowest literacy levels. (Haigler 17) That being the case, how can the average prisoner be expected to comply with what could be complicated or technical procedures that they do not fully comprehend?

If such an inmate makes a procedural mistake, or if not enough time is given him or her to comply with procedures, it could mean losing the ability to continue the grievance process. Unfortunately, courts have been inconsistent in their rulings on this important issue. Another byproduct of the PLRA is the unfortunate reality that many worthy lawsuits are not currently able to reach a Federal judge at all. In addition

to the complications already highlighted, another issue involves caps being placed on attorney fees that may be recovered, and restrictions being made on billable hours.

The result of this is that attorneys are discouraged from representing prisoners even if they have a strong case, since they will have difficulty obtaining compensation for their work. Such a limitation on attorney’s fees related to prisoner complaints is completely contradictory to other civil rights cases, where the compensation is based on prevailing market rates. This would appear to be another hurdle placed in the path of convicts who seek relief in court. One, often overlooked, impact of the PLRA is that the law defines a prisoner so broadly that it may be applied to every person who is incarcerated.

This would include even juveniles who may never even have been convicted of a crime. Under this scenario, a young person being held either before trial or even merely on suspicion, could be beaten or even raped while in custody, and have difficulty finding justice. Not only have questions been raised regarding whether the effects of the passage of the PLRA have truly been beneficial, but the law has also had its share of challenges in relation to its constitutionality. For example, in Taylor v. USA/Arizona, the Ninth Circuit Court of Arizona held PLRA key provisions to be unconstitutional.

The court stated: "Congress, in violation of the Constitution, has reopened the final judgments of the federal courts and unconditionally extinguished past consent decrees affecting prison conditions. " The main thrust of constitutional challenges to the PLRA, such as this example, have been based on separation of powers principles by actively terminating consent

decrees that were entered into before the passage of the PLRA. In other words, if the judiciary's power to render definitive judgments (e. g.. ; consent decrees) were subject to congressional control (e. . ; the PLRA), then the judiciary would become subordinate to the legislature.

Additional challenges have been brought citing the Equal Protection Clause of either the United States or an individual state’s Constitution. These challenges typically involve the following arguments, or variations of them. First: PLRA singles out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status for general hardship. (Romer 1620) Second: Pretrial detainees, by definition, have not yet been convicted of the crime(s) with which they have been charged.

Thus, they enjoy both the presumption of innocence, and the right not to be punished prematurely. (Bell 520) The reality is, however, that not one Constitutional challenge to the PLRA has ultimately been upheld by higher courts. Despite the fact that the PLRA seems to be firmly entrenched and able to withstand any attacks against it - whether legal or rhetorical - the ACLU does not mince words in their disdain for this law. As Wendy Kaminer opines, “Like most court-stripping measures, the PLRA does not deprive people of their constitutional rights in theory; it simply deprives them of their remedies when rights are violated.

The stated purpose of this law was to curb frivolous suits by prisoners; its primary effect will be to facilitate their brutalization. ”(“Taking Liberties” n. pag) Of course, as is usually the case, there is another side to this issue. One proponent of the PLRA is the State of Washington, which argued before the United States Supreme Court (id.

at 2-3,15) that frivolous lawsuits brought by prisoners are best addressed by legislation like the PLRA rather than the denial of substantive civil rights protection.

An even more prominent advocate of this legislation was late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist who stated, “... the Effective Death Penalty Act and the PLRA appear to be promising examples of how Congress can reduce the disparity between resources and workload in the federal Judiciary without endangering its distinctive character. ”(“The Third Branch” n. pag) Judge Rehnquist believed that the PLRA would continue to have a positive impact by accomplishing one effect that it was designed to produce - reducing the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Many supporters of the PLRA agree with Rehnquist in this regard. David Schoenbrod, who was quoted at the outset, is certainly one of those supporters. However, he goes even further in explaining the benefits of this law. Schoenbrod is of the school of thought that believes federal courts have usurped state and local authority, which, in effect, is an undermining of democracy. For example, judicial decrees had, prior to 1996, forced municipalities to spend huge sums from their inadequate budgets to support policies that had not been approved by local officials and in many cases proved to be counterproductive.

Ross Sandler, a professor at New York Law School, also answers those who claim that prisoner’s civil rights are now being more widely violated and question the constitutionality of the PLRA. “With breathtaking simplicity, Congress restored the prerogatives of local self-government. At the same time, it confirmed the courts' duty to uphold constitutional and statutory rights. ” (“Empowering” n. pag) The PLRA does, indeed,

continue to provide prisoners with the protections they are granted by the constitution, according to both Sandler and Schoenbrod.

Above all, under the constitution, government should be accountable to the people. On the other hand, the responsibility of the court is to protect rights, not to set policy. When the courts overstep their mandate by imposing their will upon mayors or governors, they are actually undermining governmental accountability. Duly elected state and local officials are in a much better position to determine how - or even if - limited resources should be distributed to accomplish the most good, such as in local prisons.

When the administrative grievance process is followed in the manner prescribed in the PLRA, that process is able to fully identify details of the prisoner’s case and determine its merits before it reaches a federal court. Once in court, there is a much greater likelihood that the case would be more well defined and presented in a concise manner. The court would then be able to focus solely on issues at hand instead of being forced to spend time attempting to interpret a potentially muddled argument.

Under these circumstances, it would appear that federal courts would have more time available to address legitimate cases brought under the PLRA. With both vocal supporters and passionate detractors, the PLRA has been a very widely discussed, debated, and litigated piece of legislation. The most important question seems to be: what kind of track record has it achieved over the last nine years? Once again, the answer depends on whom you ask. There is information to suggest that passage of the PLRA has accomplished the goals envisioned by its

sponsors. A survey taken in 2002 found that 72. percent of state attorneys general and 61. 4 percent of federal judges perceived a reduction in case load after the PLRA went into effect. (Nelson n. pag) Not surprisingly, there has been a significant decrease in actual civil-rights lawsuits filed after 1996. The actual filing rate decreased from 37 cases per 1,000 prisoners in 1995 to 19 cases per 1,000 prisoners in 2000 (Scalia n. pag). In addition, the majority of federal judges have not reacted negatively to what could have been interpreted as Congress’ attack on their authority - undoubtedly due to their perceived lighter workloads.

By contrast however, those who oppose the PLRA have not backed down from their position that the law is discriminatory and unconstitutional, effectively hampering a prisoners right of legal recourse. According to Elizabeth Alexander, Director, ACLU National Prison Project, “PLRA poses a difficult obstacle to prisoners, and many prisoners will be denied relief solely because of its provisions. ” The belief is widespread that many prisoners currently have to endure beatings, rapes, and countless other civil rights violations due, primarily, to passage of the PLRA.

The ACLU, as well as many other groups and individuals, are working to promote awareness of the effects of the law and encourage changes in it. Regardless of which side of the PLRA issue a person may choose to support, it seems evident that the Supreme Court has no desire in the current political climate to overturn it or find any of its provisions unconstitutional. That being the case, the PLRA seems destined to be a long-term tool for prison reform that will continue to successfully

fulfill its role as designed by Congress. At the same time, as long as it remains as law, it will also continue to be a lightning rod for liberal dissent.