Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Circuit split · prisoner litigation

Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act's administrative-exhaustion requirement includes a procedural default component that bars suit when a prisoner fails to properly exhaust available remedies

1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.

  1. Third Circuit Court of Appeals · June 18, 2004

    “We recognize that there is an emerging split among the circuits on whether the PLRA includes a procedural default component.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
    Empirical analysis of this case →

The provision at issue

28 U.S.C. § 2254 — State custody; remedies in Federal courts
“(a) The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. (b) (1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that— (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies …”
Read the full section →

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

  • Joined by · 10th Cir.Ross v. County of Bernalillo365 F.3d 1181
  • Joined by · 7th Cir.Pozo v. McCaughtry286 F.3d 1022
  • Declined to follow · 6th Cir.Thomas v. Woolum337 F.3d 720
    “Woolum, 337 F.3d 720 , 723 (6th Cir.2003) (“[W]e hold that so long as an inmate presents his or her grievance to prison officials and appeals through the available procedures, the inmate has exhausted his or her administrative remedies, and a prison’s decision not to address the grievance because it was untimely under prison rules shall not bar the federal suit.”).” — Spruill v. Gillis, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Anchor precedents:
Nyhuis204 F.3d 65 ·
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel526 U.S. 838
Statutes:
§ 1997e(a) ·
28 U.S.C. § 2254
Doctrines & tests:
procedural default ·
proper exhaustion ·
termination requirement ·
fair presentation

Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.