Case Citator › Pavey v. Conley

Pavey v. Conley

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Seventh Circuit
Citation
544 F.3d 739
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
2025
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Abrogated as to judicial resolution of exhaustion facts intertwined with jury-triable merits issues. All 37 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

In Perttu v. Richards, the Supreme Court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a jury to decide exhaustion facts intertwined with the merits of a claim protected by the Seventh Amendment. That holding displaced Pavey v. Conley's direction to hold a judicial exhaustion hearing first and let the merits jury revisit overlapping facts afterward. Courts continue to use Pavey's hearing procedure when exhaustion facts are separate from the merits. The confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

37 later cases cite Pavey v. Conley; 37 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Pavey v. Conley?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court required a jury, rather than a prior judicial hearing, to resolve PLRA exhaustion facts intertwined with jury-triable merits issues, displacing Pavey's contrary procedure.

    Perttu v. Richards · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    That decision conflicted with a contrary holding on the same question from the Seventh Circuit, see Pavey v. Conley, 544 F. 3d 739, 742 (2008), and we granted certiorari to resolve the split. ... For those reasons, we hold as a matter of statutory interpretation that parties have a right to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that falls under the Seventh Amendment.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Pavey v. Conley and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace