Case Citator › In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act

In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
105 F.3d 1131
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
52 of 52
Citing cases (total)
52
Treatment dates
2000–2021
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. All 52 flagged citations to In re Prison Litigation Reform Act have been read; two decisions declined to follow parts of the order, as listed below. The Ninth Circuit retained judicial discretion to permit amendment after a PLRA screening dismissal.
More on how this was screened

A Virginia district court required each joined prisoner plaintiff to pay a separate filing fee instead of dividing one fee among them.

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.

52 later cases cite In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act; 52 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 In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act?

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

Declined to Follow

  • The Ninth Circuit en banc rejected the order's view that a complaint dismissed under the PLRA for failure to state a claim cannot receive leave to amend.

    Lopez v. Smith · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    It also noted that the Sixth Circuit had reached the same conclusion in In Re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1138 (6th Cir. 1997). ... Of course, we conclude that the PLRA does not preclude leave to amend. ... Only the Sixth Circuit has expressly held that the PLRA precludes a district court from granting leave to amend when dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim. See Benson v. O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1016 (6th Cir. 1999); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997). Yet the court has provided little analysis to support its position.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The district court required each joined prisoner plaintiff to pay a full filing fee, rejecting the order's rule that they divide one fee.

    Brooks v. Mnuchin · Western District of Virginia · filed

    Furthermore, even if the court were not severing their respective claims, but allowing them to remain joined in a single suit, each plaintiff would be required to comply with the financial requirements and to pay a separate filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (stating that a prisoner plaintiff “shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee” for a civil action); see also Boriboune, 391 F.3d at 855–56; Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001); Ofori, 2019 WL 4344289, at *4. But see In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1137, 1138 (6th Cir. 1997) (concluding that plaintiffs proceeding together should be charged a single fee, apportioned among them). To hold otherwise would allow prisoners to circumvent the plain requirement of the PLRA’s filing fee provisions.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act 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