Lawyer Listings Add, Update, or Remove Listings

Prisoners' Rights and the Prison Litigation Reform Act

The constitutional protections that survive incarceration - against cruel and unusual conditions, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and punishment without process - and the federal statute that makes a prisoner exhaust the prison's own grievance system before any of them can be enforced in court.

Informational only - this is not legal advice. These definitions explain general legal vocabulary in plain English. They are not advice about your situation, reading them creates no attorney-client relationship, and the law differs from state to state and changes over time. For advice you can rely on, speak to a lawyer licensed in your state.

What it means

A person in prison or jail keeps a reduced but real set of constitutional rights. The Eighth Amendment forbids conditions of confinement that deny the minimal civilised measure of life's necessities and forbids officials from being deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need - a known, serious condition left untreated is a constitutional violation, not only malpractice. It also forbids the use of force maliciously to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to keep order, and requires officials to take reasonable measures against a known substantial risk of violence from other prisoners. Pretrial detainees, who have not been convicted, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause against conditions that amount to punishment. Prisoners retain the right to practise their religion, to communicate with the courts and with counsel, to be free from racial discrimination, and to some measure of process before a disciplinary sanction that affects the length or the basic conditions of their confinement.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act governs how those rights are enforced. Before filing any federal suit about prison conditions, a prisoner must exhaust the institution's administrative grievance process completely and properly - every step, every deadline, in the form the prison requires - and a suit filed before that is dismissed no matter how strong the claim, though a grievance process that is genuinely unavailable need not be exhausted. The Act also requires payment of the filing fee from the prisoner's account over time, limits the fees a successful prisoner's lawyer may recover, bars compensatory damages for mental or emotional injury without a physical injury, restricts the scope and duration of injunctions over prison conditions, and revokes filing-fee waivers for a prisoner who has had three prior suits dismissed as frivolous.

The claim is brought under the federal civil-rights statute against the individual officials and, for a policy-based violation, against the county for a jail; state prison systems and their departments cannot be sued for damages in federal court, and federal prisoners have almost no damages remedy against federal officers. Qualified immunity applies. Alongside the constitutional claim, a state-law negligence or medical-malpractice claim may lie against the same officials or a private medical contractor, subject to the state's tort claims act.

Where this comes from

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), refined in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); conditions of confinement are governed by Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981), and Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991); force by Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992); pretrial detainees by Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), and Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015); disciplinary process by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), and Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). The Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement is 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), construed in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion), and Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (unavailable remedies); its physical-injury rule is § 1997e(e), the fee provisions are 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) and (g), and the limits on prospective relief are 18 U.S.C. § 3626.

When people hire a lawyer for this

The single most important thing a prisoner or a family member can do is file the grievance now, follow every step of the prison's procedure to its final appeal, and keep copies - a lawyer cannot cure a failure to exhaust, and most prison-conditions cases are lost on that ground before any court looks at the merits. For a serious medical or safety situation, the family should also write to the warden and the state's department of corrections in parallel, because the record of what officials knew is what a deliberate-indifference claim is built on. Prisoners' rights organisations and law-school clinics take these cases; private lawyers take them mainly where there is a serious injury.

Find a lawyer for this in your state

Choose your state. Each link opens the directory page for the city in that state with the most currently published law firms in this practice area; a +n beside the city is how many other cities in the state also have one. The list is generated when this page loads, so a state whose listings have lapsed drops out rather than becoming a dead link.

« All glossary terms

Part of the LawyerLand plain-English legal glossary. Definitions are written from primary sources - statutes and court rules - and each entry states the authority it rests on, or says plainly when the doctrine is state law with no national rule.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, civil legal aid programmes provide free help with many of these problems: civil legal aid programmes by state.

Related free reference tools: statute of limitations for a personal-injury claim, by state, quoted from each state's official text - part of LawyerLand's legal reference tools.