LII Bulletin Previews Jones v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections & Williams v. Overton Consolidated Oral Argument to Occur Before Supreme Court October 30

Cornell’s LII Bulletin has posted the following preview of the consolidated oral argument slated to take place in Jones v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections (05-7058) and Williams v. Overton (05-7142) before the Supreme Court:

PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION, PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT (PLRA), AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, TOTAL EXHAUSTION RULE, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Jones v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections (05-593)
Williams v. Overton (05-7142)
Oral Argument Date: October 30, 2006

Lorenzo Jones and Timothy Williams both filed suit against the Michigan Department of Corrections on the grounds that the treatment they received in jail violated their Constitutional civil rights. The Circuit Court held that neither plaintiff fulfilled their requirements to totally exhaust available administrative remedies under 42. U.S.C. § 1997e of the PLRA. The Circuit Court held that Jones failed the exhaustion requirement because he failed to either describe or attach proof of how he exhausted administrative remedies in his complaint. See Jones v. Bock, 135 Fed at 839. Although Williams did attach proof of exhaustion to his complaint, the Circuit Court held that he still failed the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement because he did not specifically name the defendant in his initial grievance filings with prison officials. See Williams v. Overton, 136 Fed at 862. In these consolidated cases, Petitioners argue that the Circuit Court's holdings amount to judicially-created pleading requirements that are inconsistent with the PLRA’s text, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and judicial norms. Respondents maintain that the PLRA instituted a “new regime” for inmate Civil Rights Act suits and that the text and structure of the PLRA require the Circuit Court’s heightened pleading requirements. See Brief for Respondents at 27-28. How the Supreme Court decides these condensed cases will reflect its view of the correct balance of burden between inmate plaintiffs and the judiciary. These cases will either require prisoners to be more vigilant in asserting their own civil rights or require the judiciary to be more active in defending prisoners’ rights.

The full preview is available here.