Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Jones v. Bock

Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePrison Litigation Reform ActExhaustion of administrative remediesPleadingAffirmative defensesPLRAexhaustionaffirmative defense

Facts

The petitioners were Michigan prisoners subject to MDOC grievance procedures requiring oral resolution efforts, then written grievances and appeals through three steps. The Sixth Circuit applied rules requiring a prisoner to allege and document exhaustion in the complaint, requiring each later-sued defendant to have been named in the initial grievance, and requiring dismissal of the entire action if any claim was unexhausted. Jones's complaint was dismissed because he did not attach grievance materials or plead exhaustion with specificity; Williams's and Walton's suits were dismissed because they had not named all later-sued officials in their grievances, and their entire actions were also dismissed under the total exhaustion rule. At the time of these grievances, MDOC policy required prisoners to be as specific as possible and brief and concise, but did not require naming particular officials.

Issue

Does the PLRA require prisoners to plead and prove exhaustion in their complaints, require that they name each later-sued defendant in the grievance process, and require dismissal of the entire action when a complaint contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims? Or instead is exhaustion an affirmative defense governed by ordinary pleading rules, with proper exhaustion measured by prison grievance rules and unexhausted claims handled claim by claim?

Rule

Failure to exhaust under the PLRA is an affirmative defense that defendants must plead and prove; prisoners need not specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints. Proper exhaustion under the PLRA requires compliance with the prison's own grievance procedures, and the PLRA itself does not impose a rule requiring every later-sued defendant to be named in the grievance unless the prison's procedures do so. When a complaint includes both exhausted and unexhausted claims, the PLRA does not require dismissal of the entire action; courts should dismiss only the unexhausted claims.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

While incarcerated in Columbus, Ohio, Derek Moss filed a § 1983 complaint alleging that officers at Lakeview Correctional Center used excessive force during a cell extraction. His complaint states the incident date and injuries but says nothing about grievances, and he attached no prison paperwork.

At initial screening, what is the best basis for the district court to apply under the PLRA?

Explanation. The governing rule is that failure to exhaust under the PLRA is an affirmative defense, not a pleading requirement imposed on the prisoner. Ordinary Rule 8 pleading applies, and the PLRA's screening provisions do not justify a judicially created rule requiring inmates to allege or document exhaustion in the complaint.