No. 21-692

Sergeant Haystings, et al. v. Albert B. Korb

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2021-11-10
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-remedies civil-procedure civil-rights exhaustion-requirement federal-rules-of-civil-procedure judicial-procedure prison-litigation-reform-act standing supplemental-pleading
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-02-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a prisoner can cure a violation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's mandatory pre-suit exhaustion requirement by filing a supplemental pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) 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). Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) provides that “fo]n motion and reasonable notice” a district court may “permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Courts of Appeals disagree about the relationship between these two provisions and are split as to whether a prisoner’s violation of the PLRA’s mandatory pre-suit exhaustion requirement can be remedied through a Rule 15(d) supplemental pleading. The question presented is as follows: When a prisoner violates the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e et seq., by initiating litigation without first exhausting administrative remedies, can the prisoner escape that violation by filing a supplemental pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d)?

Docket Entries

2022-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-21
Reply of petitioners Sgt. Haystings, et al. filed.
2022-01-10
Brief of respondent Albert Korb in opposition filed.
2021-11-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including January 10, 2022.
2021-11-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 10, 2021 to February 8, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 10, 2021)

Attorneys

Albert Korb
Michael Hugh McGinleyDechert LLP, Respondent
Michael Hugh McGinleyDechert LLP, Respondent
Sgt. Haystings, et al.
Sean Andrew KirkpatrickOffice of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, Petitioner
Sean Andrew KirkpatrickOffice of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, Petitioner