Whether Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act mandates dismissal of unexhausted claims or allows a prisoner to cure failure to exhaust by filing an amended complaint after release from prison

QUESTION PRESENTED The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA” or “Act”) provides: “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions .. . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This Court has described the Act’s exhaustion requirement as mandatory, unambiguous, and immune to judge-made exceptions. Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856-58 (2016). Aside from the one textual exception (remedies must be “available” to the prisoner), “the PLRA’s text suggests no limits on an inmate’s obligation to exhaust.” Id. at 1856. The Third Circuit, in conflict with other Courts of Appeals, has created an exception to Section 1997e(a)’s mandatory exhaustion requirement for a category of prisoners—those who file suit without first exhausting administrative remedies, but who are released from custody while the suit is pending and then file an amended complaint. In the Third Circuit’s view, the prisoner’s “change in status” during the lawsuit (from prisoner to non-prisoner) “cures” his initial failure to exhaust remedies. App. 30. The question presented is: If a prisoner fails to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit, does Section 1997e(a) mandate dismissal of the unexhausted claims, or may the prisoner cure his failure to exhaust by filing an amended complaint after his release from prison?