Louis Napier v. Karen J. Preslicka

BLACK, Before BIRCH and Circuit Judges, *, and PROPST District Judge: BIRCH, Circuit Judge: In this case of first impression, we de- § cide 1997e(e), whether U.S.C. a provi- sion of the Litigation Prison Reform Act of 104-134, Pub.L. No. 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (“PLRA”), applies to claims that arise out of the arrest imprisoned of an plaintiff and claims unrelated to the cur- rent plaintiff. incarceration of that * Alabama, Honorable Propst, Robert B. United silting by designation. States Judge District for the Northern District of 1997e(e) pauperis prejudice applied § held court district forma frivolous, 28 U.S.C. per complaint as AF- and we facts of under 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1 § FIRM. II. DISCUSSION I. BACKGROUND Review A. Standard Karen deputies September 30On Pomeroy ap- M. and Sandra Preslicka J. abuse of discretion review for We him and asked Louis proached that an decision judge’s district informa a valid produced identification. under 28 is frivolous complaint pauperis license, deputies and the drivers’ Florida 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). v. § Mitchell U.S.C. arrest soon to return only departed, 294 Corp., Tobacco & Williamson Brown According trespassing. Napier (11th Cir.2002); v. Bilal 1315 F.3d actually Napier was Louis deputies, (11th these Driver, Cir. F.3d 1349 251 trespass received a who had Napier, John 1915(e)(2)(B)®, 2001). §of purposes For earlier, July 1995. on 29 years warning two argu if it is “without is frivolous action an brother, actually Louis’s Napier John Bilal, in or fact.” either law merit able and Napier Louis despite both but district the at 1349. Because 251 F.3d distinction, the making this companions frivolity, legal on its decision judge based and trans- in the arrest deputies persisted validity of his as the must examine we facil- pre-trial to a detention Napier ported 1997e(e) this prohibited § sumption that nolle eventually was charge ity. The he to determine whether in order lawsuit prossed. § 1915. under his discretion abused separate a Later, on imprisoned while U.S.C. Applicability B. k.% of 42 offense, filed a U.S.C. Louis 1997e(e) § deputies against two § action (e) U.S.C. Subsection embar- that he suffered alleged he civil ac Federal “[n]o states § 1997e anguish mental rassment con brought by prisoner a may be Amendment tion his Fourth deprivation other correctional jail, prison, 1997 fined September rights occasioned injury suf or emotional facility, for mental In imprisonment. arrest mistaken prior custody while and fered action, pro se Napier proceeded this injury.” This statute showing physical on he does pauperis, as in foivna frivo number of that, intended to reduce be- judge found The district appeal. plaintiffs, by imprisoned lous cases any physical alleged had not cause and excessive have little lose depu- of the who from the actions arising harm pursue which to free time with the action amounts bring ties, not entitled he was Garner, Harris See complaints. Litigation their Prison dictates of the under the Cir.2000) (en (11th 1997e(e). 976-79 F.3d Act, § With- 42 U.S.C. Reform banc) history legislative claim, (surveying for the legal valid basis out a PLRA). An barred action to dismiss compelled felt judge district (ii) relief on which to state a fails claim part statute states: of that 1. The relevant granted; or be the case court shall dismiss [T]he against de- (iii) monetary relief seeks that— if the court determines time untrue;, such relief. (A) who is immune allegation poverty is fendant 1915(e)(2). (B) § appeal— action or 28 U.S.C. malicious; (i)is frivolous or 1997e(e) § barred im- Injury suffered during arrest prisonment plaintiff; therefore, of the yet We have not addressed wheth preju- action should be dismissed without er the words “suffered while in custody,” court, allowing dice the district 1997e(e), § as used just cover more than prisoner bring his claim once released injury occurring while confined in a correc and, presumably, once the litigation cost- tional institution. In matters of statutory Id. balance is restored to normal. benefit interpretation, give we overriding defer at 980. ence to the unambiguous language of the Harris, statute. 216 F.3d at 972-73.

Tracking the of the language 1997e(e) statute, § applies only to lawsuits Looking whole, at the statute as a (1) (2) involving civil actions Congress was aware of its ability to re (3) brought by for mental or application strict the per statute to (4) injury emotional while in suffered cus sons confined a correctional institution tody. we decided that by using “prisoner” the term and defining phrase civil “Federal action” means all fed that term in the statute itself. Congress claims, eral including constitutional claims. chose not to use the more “pris restrictive § 216 F.3d at 984-85. This 1983 action oner” language, opting instead to apply the brought by Napier is a “Federal civil ac injuries statute to occurring while in custo tion” under this definition. We also had dy. Congress presumed is to know the Harris to in opportunity clarify fully settled meaning legal of the terms it uses meaning phrase of the “brought by a pris in statutes and enacted to use those terms oner,” holding that the applies PLRA to all the settled sense. 216 F.3d at cases initiated by prisoner, without re 974. usage The common “custody,” gard to whether that prisoner was re the Miranda context in which the defini leased before the court considered the arises, tion most often just reflects not Id. merits of his action. 974. It at is but, rather, imprisonment, any situation in undisputed Napier that filed his complaint which a reasonable individual would feel a imprisoned. while It undisputed is also restraint on his movement such that he Napier’s complaint that alleges emo would not feel free to leave. Minnesota v. injuries, satisfy tional' so as to the third Murphy, 430, 420, 1136, 465 U.S. 104 S.Ct. predicate 1997e(e). application § for the (1984); 79 L.Ed.2d 409 Miranda v. The new legal issues in Arizona, this case 436, 444, sur- 384 U.S. 86 S.Ct. predicate, round the fourth 1612, 16 requiring (1966); United States L.Ed.2d 694 McDowell, injury emotional be “suffered (11th while 250 F.3d custody.” particular, Cir.2001). question is Formal arrest is considered whether phrase this is of injury inclusive archetype of a situation that results in suffered during the arrest of an individual Miranda custody. Murphy, at U.S. charge on a unrelated to present 430, 104 con- at 1144 (holding S.Ct. that custody finement.2 Miranda purposes means “formal ar- Napier’s complaint allege could read proceed be to injuries his arising on claims for dis- injuries arising from pretrial his mistaken de- arrest, and, tinctly from his accordingly, we following tention trespassing. his arrest for see no to viability reason discuss the However, Napier 1997e(e) § admits that arising forfeited pretrial claims de- would bar injury arising his lawsuit for from tention. pretrial detention. He chooses instead to Napier’s custody unrelated current ing of movement on freedom or restraint rest arrest”). formal confinement. with ... associated statute, of the we to examine the Again, Given the structure are forced explicit connection custody,” lack of of the “in meaning phrase particular, more “custody” and the the term plain language provide its does between dealing in the statute phrases epi- restriction on the custodial temporal restrictive incarceration, and status it prisoner argue with to which One could sode relates. “custody” we find that language, plain custody” its meant to phrase “in light its com interpreted be custody, custody should present to the refer Accordingly, find that we mon definition. currently in fact prisoner for which law apply PLRA should “in phrase custody” or that the prisoner, injuries claim suffered refer, suits reference to the meant custody if episodes, even custodial statute, past parts pres- other of the walls. outside occurred custody. inter- instances first ent might purpose pretation reflect narrow particular circum Turning to the PLRA to reduce that he claims stances litigation, brought by suits condition those injury arrest mistaken suffered they what as challenge view embarrassment the officers. The indeed, or, unacceptable unconstitutional mistak harm occasioned emotional present confine- circumstances of their earliest, occurred, when arrest en ment. arrested—or, using the Mi was construct, the moment that randa However, interpretation the is not first in his situation would person reasonable the plain language the of supported the harm unable to leave. Because feel statute, language it is we that to which he occurred while by Napier complained Congress ultimately turn. could must to his PLRA custody, applies the was say to thus drafted “while the statute to claim, applies PLRA assuming the or custody” in that or “while imprisoned” to plaintiffs action unrelated the causes of the confinement” “during aforementioned incarceration, we now dis as must present to question clause tie the specifically to cuss. to ensure that antecedent in order Even was followed. interpretation first un- Injury prior occurring have used simply, Congress could more episode related custodial uses “prisoner” as it imprisoned” “while finding Napier Based on our to in the if its intent was statute earlier custody” “in while harm was PLRA to subject to the limit the claims accrued, it follows mistaken arrest only in arising harm accrued those based the tres Napier imprisoned on were limited venue. prohibited under charge, would be pass he a narrow Again, problem with while thus bringing suit the PLRA from “custody” is that Con inju interpretation alleged physical he imprisoned unless ap however, obviously how limit case, knew gress is ry. this prisoners of the charge, plication but statute trespass on the imprisoned but did not do prison, entirely occurring unre imprisoned on an events is instead use the common so, opting instead to argued offense. It could be lated im custody.” “When the “while in apply phrase limitations should not PLRA’s Congress has used of the words port harm occurred dur- case because the this clear, here, we as it is need not resort to III. CONCLUSION history, legislative certainly and we should above, For the reasons stated the dis- plain meaning not do so to undermine the trict court did not abuse its discretion by statutory language.” of the dismissing Napier’s complaint. impact F.3d at 976. The language, this PLRA litigation forbids the of this lawsuit present which is custody, unrestricted imprisoned, while as he com- that the PLRA all covers federal civil law- plains injury occurring while he was in by prisoners concerning suits filed emo- custody, and he did not allege physical tional injury or mental suffered while in injury arising from the actions of the de- past present custody, subject even if the Therefore, fendant officers.4 AF- we of the filed lawsuits is unrelated to the FIRM. imprisonment.3 current PROPST, Judge, District dissenting:

Practically, problem of frivolous law- suits is not limited exclu- I respectfully dissent. I realize that the sively to dealing those lawsuits with condi- precise language of pertinent statute tions of confinement. The natural target may arguably call for majority deci- of a prisoner’s litigious aggression is the And, states, sion. majority as the and, government, inas this the vec- unambiguous language of a statute is enti- tors for aggression are not limited to tled to “overriding However, deference.” challenging prison lawsuits conditions. the majority possible discusses two inter- Rather, prisoners have cause and opportu- pretations phrase “in custody.” It nity to file complaints concerning is axiomatic that possible these two inter- range alleged slights imposed upon pretations make the term “in custody” am- government them the during their cus- biguous.1 Given ambiguity, I cannot episodes, past todial present, both why, understand as the majority suggests, both in prison and the back seat of a question term in should be construed police cruiser. “without reference to parts the other 3. We wish to stress that the quirement effect of the PLRA prison condition suits under 42 only require See, prisoner 1997e(a). is to Gibbs, § e.g., wait until U.S.C. v. Clifford (5th imprisonment Cir.2002). his term of 298 F.3d bring ends before 332-33 ing subject those federal actions to the PLRA. 4. Given our resolution of the we do See Congress pre 216 F.3d at 980. necessary find analyze it to the substantive post-incarceration sumed that filings of these viability Napier’s of constitutional claim. types of properly suits would more reflect the n opportunity litigation costs of and would filter custody” Because the term ambigu "in is questionable out those of merit. ous, appropriate it is beyond plain to look yet The Eleventh Circuit has not been faced language of the statute. See United States v. with a prisoner’s case that involves a claim DBB, Inc., (11th 180 F.3d Cir. by that is both barred the PLRA im- 1999) ("We do not look at one word or term prisonment by applicable and barred stat- isolation, but instead we look to the entire ute of limitations after prison, release from statutory context.... We will look be thereby giving plaintiff opportunity no to yond plain language of a statute at extrin ever have his claim heard on the merits a sic congressional materials to determine the hold, proffer, federal court. We but do not as (1) intent if: language the statute’s ambigu us, that issue is not before ous; such a (2) result applying according plain it to its may mitigated by be equitable doctrine of result; meaning would lead to an absurd or tolling, applied (3) as other circuits have there contrary is clear evidence legisla of intent.”) (citations doctrine to the omitted). administrative exhaustion re- tive or legislative history, statute” where brought action with respect prison an statutory there is obvious scheme. As conditions under section 1983 of this Supreme recently title, Court has observed: any law, or other Federal aby prisoner jail, confined in any prison, or In determining whether Congress has other facility correctional if the court is specifically question addressed the at is- satisfied frivolous, that the action is ma- sue, a reviewing court should not confine licious, fails to state a claim upon which examining particular itself to a statutory granted, relief can be or monetary seeks provision isolation. meaning —or relief from a defendant who is immune certain ambiguity phrases words or —of from such relief. may only become placed evident when (2) It a is, context.... “fundamental the event that a canon claim on its face, frivolous, statutory malicious, of construction that the words fails to state claim upon of statute must be read in which their con- relief can granted, be text and with a seeks place monetary view to their relief from a defen- statutory overall dant who relief, scheme.” ... A is immune court from such must the court interpret therefore the statute “as dismiss the underlying symmetrical claim and coherent regulatory requiring the exhaus- first (cid:127) scheme,” “fit, ... tion if possible, all administrative remedies. parts into an harmonious whole.” (Emphasis 1997e(d)’s Section at- torney provisions fee appear FDA part be Brown & Williamson Tobacco a continuum 120, 132-33, 120 provisions Corp., prison related to U.S. S.Ct. Next, (citations course, conditions. (2000) omitted). 146 L.Ed.2d 121 comes Section 1997e(e), the provision at After issue. The looking whole, pro- at the statute as a I 1997e(f)(l) visions Section believe that likewise refer Congress intended “in custo prison 1997e(f)(2) mean, conditions. dy” Section if not prison custody related provides: present incarceration, to the least

custody. (2) Subject agreement to the Federal, State, official of the or local Section 1997e is by pris- headed “Suits government unit of with custody over 1997e(a) begins oners.” It with Section prisoner, hearings may be conducted provides that “No action shall be facility at the prisoner which the brought with respect conditions practicable, To extent confined. under section title, court shall allow counsel to participate law, other confined conference, telephone, video or other in any jail, prison, or other correctional technology any communications in hear- facility such until administrative remedies ing at facility. held the as are available are (Empha- exhausted.” added).2 1997e(b) sis (Emphasis There follows Section It unlikely that the relating to an contemplates administrative statute “grievance” hearings “at the procedure which obviously facility” as to prison concerns defendants not connected prison conditions rather than the may actions not related who have caused even a 1997e(c) prison physical injury conditions. Section pro- such as is in referred to 1997e(e). vides: Section (1) The court shall on its own motion It appears Congress, enacting when or on the motion party of a dismiss the Litigation Prison Reform Act 2. custody Note the reference prisoner.” to “with over the

536 (11th Garner, 970 216 F.3d Harris v. sought to stem

(“PLRA”), primarily Cir.2000) (en banc), distinguishable. by prisoners aris- brought of lawsuits tide meaning There, hinged on decision their of and conditions the terms ing from a derivative “brought,” of the word likely to are imprisonment, current held that the majority The “bring.” word frivolous, prevent not and the most be There was meaning.3 a clear words leg- The general. in by prisoners lawsuits nq had “brought” that the word indication attached, PLRA, at history islative Further, the interpretations. possible two sup- Appendix, as an hereto part, least claim. “prison shakedown” involved case be seems to It also that conclusion. ports relationship be considers Harris among other cir- consensus general of Section provisions the different tween 117 Sparkman, v. See, Kincade e.g., cuits. court stated: The 1997e. Cir.1997) (“The (6th two 949, F.3d 951 quoted from language we have The concerning the hearing debates floor establishes Miller decision simply Act fo- Reform Litigation Prison 1997e(a)’s as used section “brought” prison examples of on more cused ...” brought lan shall be “No action the Prison The text suits.... condition the same word filed. And means guage itself reflects that Act Litigation Reform n thing section same means to curb objective was primary the drafters’ 1997e(e)’s action shall civil “No federal United States litigation.”); condition See Atlantic language. ...” brought be (10th 737, Cir. Simmonds, 743 111 F.3d v. States, 286 Dyers v. United & Cleaners (“The the Prison 1997) purpose main 607, 609, 433, L.Ed. 427, 76 52 S.Ct. U.S. curtail abu Act was Litigation Reform (“[Tjhere (1932) pre natural ais 1204 litigation.”); Santana prison-condition sive words used identical sumption (3d 752, States, F.3d v. United act are in of the same parts different Cir.1996) the PLRA (“Congress enacted meaning.”); to have the same tended brought by pris claims to curtail primarily v. Inc. Plantation Hosp., Doctors and the § 1983 42 U.S.C. oners under (11th 1448, Cir. Bowen, 811 F.2d Act, of which most Claims Torts (“A 1987) is made presumption conditions....”). concern an parts used different words same meaning.”). the same act have correct, Moreover, majority is if the 1997e(e) conceivably recognizes that could Harris also at 974. Id. then Section need to examine simply greater than be a there much broader have a reach statutory language history when legislative v. Flori See Duvallon present case. Id. Cir.1982) (“In unambiguous.” (11th “clear 483, da, 691 F.2d the ‘in proceedings, habeas context of may also be met was aware custody’ requirement majority says, “Congress parole, probation, application ability is on to restrict petitioner where a of its in a bail.”) Municipal confined correc- persons (citing Hensley the statute using ‘prison- the term 36 tional institution Court, 93 S.Ct. 411 U.S. in the statute defining that term (1973)). er’ and L.Ed.2d 294 plaintiffs should have the was whether agreeing ters with the 3. The dissenters complaint, supplement their state, been allowed that the word majority, "It is obvious prison conditions while filed with reference start- commencefd] 'brought’ means ” the fact that prisoners, to reflect they dispute Id. were only real The ed'... 990. prison. they released from had been majority and dissen- Harris between obviously Congress itself. knew how to application limit the of the statute to pris- decades, the past Over two we have ” occurring prison.... or to events oners witnessed an alarming explosion in the I that hope Congress would would know number of lawsuits filed State and any statutory make language how to clear. prisoners. According to enter- so, point The is that it did not do but used prise Berns, institute scholar Walter majority acknowledges a term which the number of “due-process and cruel and subject to two possible interpretations.4 I punishment” unusual complaints agree cannot that a passed statute to limit grown has astronomically— litigation regard with to prison 6,600 from 39,000 1975 to more than applies conditions to an action which ac- in 1994. As Chief Justice William Rehn- plaintiff crued before the was imprisoned quist pointed out, has prisoners will now and which even related to the “litigate at hat,” the drop of a simply charges that led to imprisonment.5 I they because have little to lose and ev- am not suggesting Congress that could not erything gain. Prisoners have filed constitutionally applied the term claiming lawsuits grievances as in custody” major- “while as broadly as the storage space, locker being insufficient

ity however, I opinion, holds. am of the prohibited attending a wedding that there is no support substantial for a anniversary party, yes, being conclusion that it intended to do so.6 served creamy peanut butter instead of chunky variety they had ordered. view of the ambiguity, legislative history, repeated references to S7498-01, 141 Cong. Rec. (daily S7524 ed. conditions, grievance provisions and 1995) (statement May Dole) of Sen. administrative remedies would have (emphasis action, application subject

no to the Sections and 5 of the bill will bar intending unlikelihood of that actions such inmate lawsuits for mental or emotional as this be heard at prison facility, injury suffered while in custody unless possible application broad to “custody” they can physical show injury. Of the etc., probation, while on I would reverse 60,086 prisoner petitions in 1994 about the dismissal. two-thirds were civil rights pe- titions, according to the Administrative

APPENDIX Office of the U.S. courts. Prisoner civil following The excerpts are taken from rights petitions brought are under legislative history Litiga- the Prison U.S.C.1983. Section petitions are tion Reform Act: brought claims Federal court State majority proposition cites finding Harris for a “Based on our was ‘in begins, import “When the of the words custody’ while the harm from the mistaken clear, here, Congress has used is as it is accrued, arrest it follows that were imprisoned trespass charge, based on the he plaintiff’s complaint 5. The allege does not prohibited would be under the PLRA from injury his initial came "while [he was] in bring imprisoned suit while thus unless he custody.” alleges He injured by that he was alleged physical injury.” being custody. recognize taken into I argument can be made that he did not actual- Congress believe 6.I that if had intended this ly injury custody, "suffer” an until he was in (e) provision depart one at Section 1997e requires but the distinction still further scheme, clearly overall it would have stretching Congressional I intent. cannot said so. that, agree majority's with the observation anything just about right, complain a for violation seeking redress

inmates everything. “The volume rights. civil of their by They invoke the cruel-and-unusual- is substantial litigation section 1983 ” Eighth provision standard, according punishment to the Justice any beaten or not when Amendment 1983 liti- on section report Department’s when shot by prison guards, but raped “Challenging Conditions gation, ” riot, required to or when during prison a Jails. Prisons and smoker, heavy or with a share a cell S7498-01, (daily ed. S7527 Rec. Cong. storage locker given insufficient when (Statement 1995) Kyi) of Senator May creamy peanut given when space, or added). (emphasis chunky variety instead of butter Rehnquist was Justice Chief ordered. they refer- protesting ring appeals Amendment They involve the First defendants innocence, initi- to the suits but their marriage, into to enter forbidden when deprivation claiming by people ated with inmates other correspond or al- prison. Since while in rights their Demos sued prisons. state John Robert or administrative any disciplinary most addressing official for not prison one can now by prison officials action taken name. him his Islamic or cruel-and- process to a due give rise not a probably And there is num- complaint, the unusual-punishment not, does regulation whose enforcement at a rate growing suits is ber of these not, a 14th give rise to least “litigation explain goes far (or, federal in the case of Amendment 39,065 6,606 in 1975 to explosion”: amendment) pro- Fifth due prisoners, 1,100 (of “only” reached which in 1994 elaborate complaint. Requiring cess Court). Supreme these evidentiary proceedings, trials pa- try especially, are the cases 37,925 total, were the 1994 Of Still, reviewing judges. tience of of the so- under a section state particular complaints imposes these Act of Klux Klan called Ku who, officials burden on administrative damages against permits actions can be for dam- judges, sued unlike “any citizen of deprive who state officials ages. under person or other States the United S7498-01, (daily ed. Cong. Rec. S7527 thereof, <of> jurisdiction 1995) (Article May Wall secured or immunities rights, privileges, Journal) (Attached Congres- Street This and laws.” by the Constitution Record) (emphasis sional when own into its statute came year, inmates 400 times Almost last damage permitted Supreme Court sued the state. Some Arizona fami- of a by members black action filed claims: their reason) (with claimed ly good who go to his inmate wasn’t allowed An deprived officers had Chicago police anniversary party; an- parents’ wedding' right Fourth Amendment them of the subject to cruel he was houses, other said persons, in their “to be secure he wasn’t because punishment unusual effects, against unreasonable papers and father’s funeral. to attend his allowed Today, the stat- searches and seizures.” who, that he lost his inmate claimed An mostly by prisoners ute is used gross because tennis shoes Reebok or another constitutional invoking one negligence by the money state. Another said costs from earned in prison jobs. addition, inmates sunglasses. the state lost his who filed unsub- harassing stantiated or lawsuits can be jeans A woman inmate said the she days forced to forfeit five good-behav- properly. was issued didn’t fit ior credit. An inmate sued because he wasn’t law new didn’t slow down Mitch- hang tapestry allowed to in his cell. Jackson, ell H. drug convicted dealer When the state decided that inmates at incarcerated the state Tuc- would not be allowed see movies with son. Jackson has filed against suits exposed genitals, breasts and an inmate years. state recent got He off to claimed that violated his Constitutional good start filing two in the rights. suits, first week. In one of his he tar- Inmates money claimed state stole gets the new law requiring inmates to from their prison accounts. But another pay filing fees. He claims has inmate claimed illegally depos- the state him caused “mental anguish and emo- account, money in ited disqualifying tional million distress.” He wants $10 him an indigent. as from each of the 90 legislators-a total of

An inmate claimed he was almost billion. wrongly $1 disciplined refusing for to change the S7498-01, 141 Cong. Rec. (daily S7527-28 television from a Spanish-language chan- 1995) (Article May ed. from the Tuc- nel. Citizen) (Attached son to the Congression- Record) al (emphasis

An inmate said he was not provided President, Mr. proper pleased books for a black I am join studies today my distinguished with colleagues, class taking. he was HATCH, KYL, ABRAHAM, Senators they Several inmates said weren’t al- HUTCHISON, REID, THURMOND, go lowed to to the using bathroom while SPECTER, SANTORUM, D’AMATO, the law library. GRAMM, BOND, in introducing the One inmate was denied access to the Litigation Prison Reform Act of 1995. law library after he kicked and tam- legislation This is a improved new and pered with a security device in li- version of S. I introduced brary. year earlier this alarming address the An inmate said he wasn’t allowed to explosion in the number of frivolous law- get married. prison- suits filed State and Federal An inmate said he was forced to work ers. It also builds on stopturning- and not paid wage. minimum out-prisoners legislation, championed by Lawsuits filed expen- inmates are Senators KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON taxpayers. sive Arizona The Attor- ABRAHAM, by making SPENCER ney General’s budgets Office million $1.5 it much more difficult for judges suits, per year fight including directing to issue orders the release of court costs. departments Other state convicted criminals from prison custody. pay also some costs.

To cut doim on the number Unfortunately, litigation explosion of frivo- filed, lous suits Legislature state now our plaguing country stop does not year passed last a law that requires prison gate. According to Enter- pay part Bems, inmates to or all filing prise Institute scholar Walter 540 up the mess who cleaned officers and and cruel “due-process

number of cards they got his Pinochle wet. because complaints punishment” unusual filed grown has astronomical- by prisoners ridiculous waste stop It is time than 6,600 to more in 1975 ly huge money. The taxpayers’ —from involve suits can 39,000 These in governments imposed on 1991^. State costs storage grievances as these meritless suits against defend insufficient aby haircut a space, locker against committed kind of crime another defective barber, prison prison law-abiding citizens offi- failure of pizza to a a to invite cials S14408-01, (daily S14418 Rec. Cong. employee, departing prison party for 1995) (Statement 27, of Senator Sept. ed. peanut chunky being served yes, Hatch). vanety. creamy butter instead of prison also addresses The amendment and on. goes on The list think of Many people litigation reform. S14408-01, (daily free S14413 their Cong. spending Rec. inmates as 1995) (Statement 27, of Senator the television Sept. weight in room or ed. time added). Dole) place crowded (emphasis lounge. But the most library. law be the today’s prisons may also addresses legislation Our have risen prison lawsuits Federal brought by lawsuits flood of 89,000 in 1994. In 2,000 in 1970 to 39,000 lawsuits over In inmates. Ap- Court the Third Circuit words courts, inmates Federal filed were because, recreational suing has peals, over percent staggering 15 increase of our long-term residents activity for year. The previous number filed prisons. com- suits are majority of these vast encourage system seems to Today’s Indeed, roughly merit. pletely impunity. After to file with before are dismissed percent 94.7 cer- all, a courtroom is it’s free. And per- a scant 3.1 pretrial phase, place spend tainly hospitable a more trial. validity to enough reach cent Prison- than cell. afternoon an Utah, suits 297 inmate my In State of al- response lawsuits in ers file free in Federal courts were slight or inconve- any perceived most of all percent for which accounted chunky instead being served last nience— cases filed civil Utah instance, butter, creamy peanut these emphasize that I year. should Gameboy video being denied the use of include corpus do habeas numbers a lawsuit prompted case game challenging cases —a or other petitions Arizona. my home State or sentence. inmate’s conviction suits of these frivolous S14408-01, (daily crushing burden Cong. Rec. S14418 to consider 1995) (Statement for courts makes it difficult of Senator Sept. ed. meritorious claims. Kyi) (emphasis Utah, in- an case In one frivolous that he be issued demanding

mate sued in- shoes Gear brand

Reebok or L.A. being is- brand of the Converse

stead case, an delib- inmate

sued. another cell, sued and then

erately flooded

Case Details

Case Name: Louis Napier v. Karen J. Preslicka

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Dec 10, 2002

Citation: 314 F.3d 528

Docket Number: 00-13064

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.