×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
PLRA Does Not Preempt State Exhaustion Statutes
By: Brandon Sample
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion of administrative remedies requirements do not preempt Tennessee’s more generous exhaustion statute, The Court of Appeals of Tennessee decided February 11, 2002.
PLRA requires prisoners to properly exhaust their administrative remedies. Failure to exhaust results in dismissal of the prisoner’s suit. However, Tennessee’s exhaustion scheme is a little more forgiving.
The trial court in a suit over a prisoner’s alleged denial of access to the courts held that the PLRA preempted Tennessee’s exhaustion system and dismissed the prisoner’s suit.
The court of appeals reversed. The court held that the PLRA “does not contain an express preemption provision.” Further, the court found no inconsistency between Tennessee’s exhaustion statute and the PLRA. See: Pendleton v. Mills, 73 S.W.3d 115 (2001).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion of administrative remedies requirements do not preempt Tennessee’s more generous exhaustion statute, The Court of Appeals of Tennessee decided February 11, 2002.
PLRA requires prisoners to properly exhaust their administrative remedies. Failure to exhaust results in dismissal of the prisoner’s suit. However, Tennessee’s exhaustion scheme is a little more forgiving.
The trial court in a suit over a prisoner’s alleged denial of access to the courts held that the PLRA preempted Tennessee’s exhaustion system and dismissed the prisoner’s suit.
The court of appeals reversed. The court held that the PLRA “does not contain an express preemption provision.” Further, the court found no inconsistency between Tennessee’s exhaustion statute and the PLRA. See: Pendleton v. Mills, 73 S.W.3d 115 (2001).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Pendleton v. Mills
| Year | 2001 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 73 S.W.3d 115 (2001) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |