Administrative Remedies Provision of 42 U.S.C §1997e Does Not Apply If Inmate Not Incarcerated at Time of Filing of Complaint

The court in Mabry v. Freeman, 489 F. Supp. 2d 782, 785-786 ( E.D. Mich. 2007), explains that “the PLRA clearly and unambiguously limits the application of the exhaustion requirements to plaintiffs who are confined, incarcerated or detained in prison for criminal violations at the time suit is filed.”  Because the plaintiff was out of prison when he filed his complaint, he “was not a prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA when he filed his complaint, [and] the exhaustion requirement does not apply to his case.”

The Mabry court further declares that “every federal court of appeals that has addressed this issue has held that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement does not apply to suits brought by former inmates.” This was held to be consistent with the PLRA, because Congress passed the PLRA to “affor[d] corrections official’s time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case” and thereby “reduc[ing] the quantity and improv[ing] the quality of prisoner suits.” Woodford (quoting Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25, 122 S. Ct. 983, 152 L. Ed. 2d 12 (2002)) and Mabry, supra. (See also, Cox v. Mayer, 332 F.3d 422, 426, (6th Cir. Tenn. 2003).)

“Congress deemed prisoners to be pestiferous litigants.” Mabry, supra, at 785. Congress found that filing lawsuits was a “recreational activity” for prisoners because the prisoners had little to lose and much to gain financially.  Further, a trip to court would be a means for the prisoner to get a short stint away from the correctional facility.  Id.  at 785-786.

In contrast, the Mabry court noted, “former prisoners must expend valuable time and money to file suits and, consequently, do not need the same disincentive to filing frivolous lawsuits as current prisoners,” and there is no need to provide the prison officials time to address complaints concerning a former inmate. Id. at 786.

However, if the inmate files suit while incarcerated, and then is released, the PLRA applies. In Cox, the appellate court determined that when a plaintiff prisoner who did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit, as required under § 1997e(a), and was subsequently released, the court had to rule on a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, even though the plaintiff was no longer a prisoner.

Cox also noted that the primary concern of the PLRA was over the rising number of lawsuits filed by prisoners and the opinion that most of these suits were frivolous, and enforcement of the strict language of the statute was required.