All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Broken Gate? A Study of the PLRA Exhaustion Requirement Past, Present, and Future
Unformatted Document Text:  Broken Gate? by small, automatic deductions take by the court over time (Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, 1996, §(b)). Conversely, inmates whom the screeners deem capable of paying, are required to pay the full amount of the federal court filing fee prior to initiating litigation (Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, 1996, §§(b)-(d)). Ironically, what the IFP statute giveth, the IFP statute taketh away (Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, 1996, §§ (b);(g)). The second function of the PLRA is to revoke IFP status for inmates who have brought previous frivolous and/or vexatious litigation (Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, 1996, §(g)). Again, to accomplish this, federal court screeners review a potential prisoner-plaintiff’s litigation history prior to them filing a new case (Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, §(g)). If an inmate is found to have had three (3) or more previous lawsuits (or appeals there from) dismissed on the basis of frivolity, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim, he or she may not proceed with a new case before paying, in full, the applicable federal court filing fee (Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, 1996, §(g)). Moreover, unlike their otherwise indigent counterparts, inmates with “three strikes,” as described in the IFP statute, must also bear the often considerable costs of pursing their own litigation, including deposition, discovery, and witness fees (Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, 1996, §(g)). However, in the interest of full disclosure, two things must be noted about the IFP statute and its screening operation. First, the term “frivolous” is used in the IFP statute as a term of art, and has been very specifically defined as a complaint lacking “an arguable basis in either law or fact” (Fradella, 1998, p. 468). Based in part on the specificity of this definition and, more than likely, in part on their general reluctance to dismiss a case of their own accord, federal district judges have been “loathe to throw out any claim that 21

Authors: Passarelli, Mariah.
first   previous   Page 21 of 31   next   last



background image
Broken Gate?
by small, automatic deductions take by the court over time (Proceedings in Forma 
Pauperis, 1996, §(b)).  Conversely, inmates whom the screeners deem capable of paying, 
are required to pay the full amount of the federal court filing fee prior to initiating 
litigation (Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, 1996, §§(b)-(d)).
Ironically, what the IFP statute giveth, the IFP statute taketh away (Proceedings in 
Forma Pauperis, 1996, §§ (b);(g)).  The second function of the PLRA is to revoke IFP 
status for inmates who have brought previous frivolous and/or vexatious litigation 
(Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, 1996, §(g)).  Again, to accomplish this, federal court 
screeners review a potential prisoner-plaintiff’s litigation history prior to them filing a 
new case (Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, §(g)).  If an inmate is found to have had three 
(3) or more previous lawsuits (or appeals there from) dismissed on the basis of frivolity, 
maliciousness, or failure to state a claim, he or she may not proceed with a new case 
before paying, in full, the applicable federal court filing fee (Proceedings in Forma 
Pauperis, 1996, §(g)). Moreover, unlike their otherwise indigent counterparts, inmates 
with “three strikes,” as described in the IFP statute, must also bear the often considerable 
costs of pursing their own litigation, including deposition, discovery, and witness fees 
(Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, 1996, §(g)).  
However, in the interest of full disclosure, two things must be noted about the IFP 
statute and its screening operation.  First, the term “frivolous” is used in the IFP statute as 
a term of art, and has been very specifically defined as a complaint lacking “an arguable 
basis in either law or fact” (Fradella, 1998, p. 468).  Based in part on the specificity of 
this definition and, more than likely, in part on their general reluctance to dismiss a case 
of their own accord, federal district judges have been “loathe to throw out any claim that 
21


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 21 of 31   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.