Prison Litigation Reform Act

Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
Acronyms (colloquial)	PLRA
Legislative history
	Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on;
United States Supreme Court cases
	List Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999); Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007); Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011); Coleman v. Tollefson, No. 13-1333, 575 U.S. ___ (2015); Bruce v. Samuels, No. 14-844, 577 U.S. ___ (2016); Ross v. Blake, No. 15-339, 578 U.S. ___ (2016); Murphy v. Smith, No. 16-1067, 583 U.S. ___ (2018); Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369, 590 U.S. ___ (2020); Perttu v. Richards, No. 23-1324, 604 U.S. ___ (2025);

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e,^[1] is a U.S. federal law that was enacted in 1996.^[2] Congress enacted PLRA in response to a significant increase in prisoner litigation in the federal courts; the PLRA was designed to decrease the incidence of litigation within the court system.^[3]

For the preceding 20 to 30 years, many US prisons and jails had been enjoined to make certain changes based on findings that the conditions of the institutions violated the constitutional rights of inmates (in particular, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment or the right to due process).

Many of the injunctions came as a result of consent decrees entered into between inmates and prison officials and endorsed by federal courts so relief was not necessarily tied to violations found. Many state officials and members of Congress had complained of the breadth of relief granted by federal judges, as the injunctions often required expensive remedial actions.^{[citation needed]}

The PLRA was designed to curb the discretion of the federal courts in those types of actions. Thus, the central requirement of the act was a provision that a court "shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right."^[4]

^ Title VIII of Pub. L. 104–134 (text) (PDF), 110 Stat. 1321.
^ P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (2006); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (1994 ed. & Supp. II).
^ Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006) (Congress enacted the PLRA in 1996 in response to a significant increase in prisoner litigation in the federal court. To accomplish that goal, Congress included a "variety of provisions" in the PLRA, a "centerpiece" of which "is an 'onvigorated' exhaustion provision, § 1997e(a).")
^ 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Under PLRA, the same criteria apply to existing injunctions, whether entered after trial or through approval of a consent decree. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). To ensure that an injunction granting prospective relief does not remain in effect for the months or years that a trial of a prison conditions case typically takes, the act requires courts to rule " promptly" on motions to terminate prospective relief, with mandamus available to remedy failure to do so.

[1] Title VIII of Pub. L. 104–134 (text) (PDF), 110 Stat. 1321.

[2] P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (2006); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (1994 ed. & Supp. II).

[3] Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006) (Congress enacted the PLRA in 1996 in response to a significant increase in prisoner litigation in the federal court. To accomplish that goal, Congress included a "variety of provisions" in the PLRA, a "centerpiece" of which "is an 'onvigorated' exhaustion provision, § 1997e(a).")

[4] 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Under PLRA, the same criteria apply to existing injunctions, whether entered after trial or through approval of a consent decree. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). To ensure that an injunction granting prospective relief does not remain in effect for the months or years that a trial of a prison conditions case typically takes, the act requires courts to rule " promptly" on motions to terminate prospective relief, with mandamus available to remedy failure to do so.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Legislative history

Acronyms (colloquial)	PLRA
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on
United States Supreme Court cases
List Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999) Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000) Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) Coleman v. Tollefson, No. 13-1333, 575 U.S. ___ (2015) Bruce v. Samuels, No. 14-844, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) Ross v. Blake, No. 15-339, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) Murphy v. Smith, No. 16-1067, 583 U.S. ___ (2018) Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) Perttu v. Richards, No. 23-1324, 604 U.S. ___ (2025)