Posts Categorized: Prison Litigation Reform Act

And a Supreme Court decision is likely to help keep it that way

A new FAQ and blog post released by the Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School exposes the state of healthcare in American prisons today. To the surprise of no one, it’s abysmal.

Recent lawsuits have revealed incredible stories of malfeasance, indifference, and incompetence. In one case, an inmate with a bump the size of a tennis ball on his arm, began going numb and twitching uncontrollably. He soon felt “his intestines escaping from his rectum.” A prison nurse gave him Tylenol and used K-Y Jelly to push his intestines back in, and then sent him to his cell. Hours later, doctors at a local hospital diagnosed him with an abscess which was compressing his spine. In another case, an inmate suffering from diabetes spent nearly a week in a cell without food, water, or his insulin. He died shortly after. The two largest prison healthcare providers have been sued over 1,750 times in the past five years.

But just as worrisome is the number of lawsuits which were never brought.

A report produced by Alliance for Justice earlier this year describes the labyrinth inmates must navigate in order to sue prison officials for medical malpractice and other constitutional violations—and how a misstep could lock them out of the courthouse doors forever. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), enacted in 1996 to “solve” the non-existent problem of runaway frivolous litigation, inmates essentially lose the ability to sue in civil courts once they have had three previous civil cases “dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” (the so-called “three-strikes” rule).

In the two decades since its passage, federal courts have expanded nearly every aspect of the PLRA. Many courts give multiple “strikes” in a single case, strikes for procedural missteps, strikes in cases that go to trial, and even strikes in cases where the inmate wins a settlement. The Supreme Court exacerbated the problem this term by even further expanding the three-strikes rule in Coleman-Bey v. Tolefson.

The law leaves victims of medical malpractice in prison with a difficult choice: sue the prison and risk losing and never being able to sue for prison misconduct again, or continue to suffer in silence. Many already have the choice made for them. For those with three strikes, there’s virtually no judicial recourse available at all.

The PLRA was passed because lawmakers believed too many inmates were suing. But as the new report from CJ&D suggests, maybe the real problem was too many prisons deserved to be sued.

The condition of prisons in the United States today is deplorable. Housing is overcrowded. Prisoners live in fear of violence. The use of solitary confinement—despite its toll on prisoners’ mental health—is on the rise. Often, the only recourse inmates have is through the federal court system.

But after a Supreme Court ruling Monday, even that recourse will be tougher to come by.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), passed in 1996, was an attempt by Congress to limit what it perceived as runaway, frivolous inmate litigation. Once a prisoner has three civil lawsuits dismissed by a court as frivolous (his or her three “strikes”), the act effectively prohibits the inmate from bringing another case while incarcerated. Without the ability to bring suit, prisoners have essentially no remedy when they are attacked, denied medical treatment, or are otherwise the victims of cruel and unusual punishment.

As detailed in AFJ’s report “An Expanding Strike Zone,” lower federal courts have been expanding nearly every element of the PLRA for the past two decades. Far from being a tool to stop frivolous lawsuits, the law now acts as a litigation minefield for prisoners, locking them out of the courthouse for technical errors, poor timing, and even reasonable arguments that end up losing.

Now the Supreme Court has taken its first step toward expanding the act. In a unanimous ruling, the Court held in Coleman-Bey v. Tollefson that so-called “pending strikes”—that is, cases that are dismissed as frivolous by the district court, but are being appealed—count towards a prisoner’s three strikes. Andre Lee Coleman-Bey, the plaintiff in the case, is an inmate in Michigan who brought a lawsuit against prison officials for interfering with his access to the courts. Coleman-Bey had brought two previous civil cases that were dismissed. He then brought a third case, which was dismissed by the trial court, and he appealed. That appeal is still pending. When Coleman-Bey attempted to bring this suit, the district judge ruled—and Monday, the Supreme Court agreed—that he was “struck out” and unable to bring the case.

The ruling means that prisoners can be prevented from bringing lawsuits if a district judge rules against them on a third strike, even if the judge’s decision was clearly incorrect, until the appeals court overturns it. Worse yet, the PLRA essentially prohibits prisoners from appealing cases once they have three strikes. Under the logic of the Court’s ruling, an inmate could be prevented from even being able to appeal the third strike an erroneous district judge gave him or her.

The Supreme Court disagreed with a vast majority of the circuit courts in coming to its decision. The First, Third, Fifth, Eight, Ninth, Tenth, and DC circuits all refused to count pending strikes against prisoners. Only the Sixth and Seventh circuits reached the same conclusion as the Supreme Court.

Monday’s decision is unlikely to be the last time the Court addresses the PLRA. Circuit courts continue to disagree on how and when the three-strikes rule applies to inmate lawsuits. One prominent judge on the DC Circuit has expressed “grave doubts” about the constitutionality of the three-strikes rule altogether. When these issues come to the Supreme Court, the justices should protect access to justice for incarcerated Americans who need it the most. The current trend of restricting their rights far beyond what the drafters of the PLRA could have envisioned only serves to protect wrongdoers and to delay the reforms our prison system so desperately needs.