Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court settled an intercircuit conflict regarding civil procedure for prisoners seeking redress. The court held that prisoners alleging assaults by prison guards must meet §1997e(a)'s exhaustion requirement before commencing a civil rights action.[1]
The Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.
Ronald Nussle, an inmate at the Cheshire Correctional Institution in Connecticut, asserted that, on or about June 15, 1996, several correctional officers asked him to leave his cell, "placed him against a wall and struck him with their hands, kneed him in the back, [and] pulled his hair." Nussle alleged that the attack was unprovoked and unjustified, and that the officers told him they would kill him if he reported the beating.
Without filing a grievance through the Connecticut Department of Correction, on June 10, 1999, Nussle commenced an action in federal district court under 42 U. S. C. §1983; he filed suit days before the three-year statute of limitations ran out on the §1983 claim. Nussle charged, principally, that the corrections officers' assault violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court, relying on §1997e(a), dismissed Nussle's complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.[2]
Construing §1997e(a) narrowly because it is an exception "to the general rule of non-exhaustion in §1983 cases," the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment; the appeals court held that "exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for [prisoner] claims of assault or excessive force brought under §1983."[3] Section 1997e(a) requires administrative exhaustion of inmates' claims "with respect to prison conditions," but contains no definition of the words "prison conditions." The appeals court found the term "scarcely free of ambiguity." In conflict with the Second Circuit, other Federal Courts of Appeals have determined that prisoners alleging assaults by prison guards must meet §1997e(a)'s exhaustion requirement before commencing a civil rights action.
Opinion of the Courtedit
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (July 2010)
Subsequent developmentsedit
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (July 2010)
porter, nussle, this, article, needs, additional, citations, verification, please, help, improve, this, article, adding, citations, reliable, sources, unsourced, material, challenged, removed, find, sources, news, newspapers, books, scholar, jstor, march, 2010. This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources Porter v Nussle news newspapers books scholar JSTOR March 2010 Learn how and when to remove this message Porter v Nussle 534 U S 516 2002 is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court settled an intercircuit conflict regarding civil procedure for prisoners seeking redress The court held that prisoners alleging assaults by prison guards must meet 1997e a s exhaustion requirement before commencing a civil rights action 1 Supreme Court of the United StatesArgued January 14 2002Decided February 26 2002Full case namePorter et al v NussleDocket no 00 853Citations534 U S 516 more 122 S Ct 983 152 L Ed 2d 12Case historyPriorDismissed No 3 99 cv 1091 D Conn Nov 22 1999 reversed 224 F 3d 95 2d Cir 2000 cert granted 532 U S 1065 2001 HoldingThe Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorAntonin Scalia Anthony KennedyDavid Souter Clarence ThomasRuth Bader Ginsburg Stephen BreyerCase opinionMajorityGinsburg joined by unanimousLaws appliedPrison Litigation Reform Act Contents 1 Background 2 Opinion of the Court 3 Subsequent developments 4 References 5 External linksBackground editRonald Nussle an inmate at the Cheshire Correctional Institution in Connecticut asserted that on or about June 15 1996 several correctional officers asked him to leave his cell placed him against a wall and struck him with their hands kneed him in the back and pulled his hair Nussle alleged that the attack was unprovoked and unjustified and that the officers told him they would kill him if he reported the beating Without filing a grievance through the Connecticut Department of Correction on June 10 1999 Nussle commenced an action in federal district court under 42 U S C 1983 he filed suit days before the three year statute of limitations ran out on the 1983 claim Nussle charged principally that the corrections officers assault violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment The District Court relying on 1997e a dismissed Nussle s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies 2 Construing 1997e a narrowly because it is an exception to the general rule of non exhaustion in 1983 cases the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court s judgment the appeals court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for prisoner claims of assault or excessive force brought under 1983 3 Section 1997e a requires administrative exhaustion of inmates claims with respect to prison conditions but contains no definition of the words prison conditions The appeals court found the term scarcely free of ambiguity In conflict with the Second Circuit other Federal Courts of Appeals have determined that prisoners alleging assaults by prison guards must meet 1997e a s exhaustion requirement before commencing a civil rights action Opinion of the Court editThis section is empty You can help by adding to it July 2010 Subsequent developments editThis section is empty You can help by adding to it July 2010 References edit Porter v Nussle 534 U S 516 2002 Nussle v Willette 3 99 CV 1091 AHN D Conn Nov 22 1999 App 43 Nussle v Willette 224 F 3d 95 106 2d Cir 2000 External links editText of Porter v Nussle 534 U S 516 2002 is available from Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio nbsp This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Porter v Nussle amp oldid 1175148661, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
