1. Access to court.

U.S. District Court

EXHAUSTION PLRA- Prisoner Litigation Reform Act

LEGAL MATERIALS

Caudell v. Rose, 378 F.Supp.2d 725 (W.D.Va. 2005). A prose state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials, asserting claims of excessive force and violation of right of access to courts. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials. The court held that the excessive force lawsuit was barred under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion provision, because the prisoner never appealed the denial of his prison grievance through all of the appropriate available channels. The court held that the prisoner failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice in his habeas corpus proceeding that challenged his murder conviction or any other court proceeding as the result of a prison counselor's alleged failure to return to the prisoner the original copy of an arrest warrant on an unrelated charge. The court held that the right of access claim was barred for failure to show prejudice. (Virginia)

U.S. Appeals Court

EXHAUSTION PLRA- Prisoner Litigation Reform Act

Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2005). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, challenging a search imposed on him when he left a prison chapel. The inmate also claimed that prison officials hindered his observance of a religious fast, violating his right to religious exercise. The district court granted summary judgment for the officials on the ground that the inmate failed to his exhaust his claims. The inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. The court held that any Fourth Amendment privacy interest that the inmate had in not being frisked upon leaving a prison chapel was insufficient to overcome the judicial deference generally afforded to prison officials when they are evaluating what is necessary to preserve institutional order and discipline. The court found that the inmate's procedural shortcoming of failing to follow the prison's time deadlines for filing a grievance only amounts to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), if prison administrators specifically relied on that shortcoming. (Illinois)

U.S. Appeals Court

EXHAUSTION APPOINTED ATTORNEY

Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005). A state prisoner filed a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded. On remand the district court granted summary judgment to a number of defendants and again dismissed the prisoner's claims against the remaining defendants. The district court also denied the prisoner's motion requesting the assistance of counsel. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement was satisfied, even though the prisoner had not appealed...