| 词条 | Booth v. Churner |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Booth v. Churner |ArgueDate=March 20 |ArgueYear=2001 |DecideDate=May 29 |DecideYear=2001 |FullName=Timothy Booth, v. C.O. Churner, et al. |USVol=532 |USPage=731 |ParallelCitations=121 S. Ct. 1819; 149 L. Ed. 2d 958 |Prior=Complaint dismissed (M.D. Pa., 1997); affirmed, 206 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2000) |Subsequent= |Holding=Prisoners who seek only monetary damages in suits over prison conditions still must exhaust all administrative remedies before going to court, even if monetary damages are not available under the particular administrative process. |SCOTUS=1994-2005 |Majority=Souter |JoinMajority=unanimous |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |Dissent2= |Dissent3= |LawsApplied=Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 }} Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the extent to which a state prisoner must first utilize an administrative review process provided by the state, prior to filing a case in federal district court. The Court held that Booth still had a mechanism of administrative review, and thus his claim was premature. BackgroundThe Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires a prisoner to exhaust "such administrative remedies as are available" before suing over prison conditions. Timothy Booth, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, Pennsylvania, filed a suit in District Court, claiming that corrections officers violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Booth sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. At the time of Booth's suit, Pennsylvania provided an administrative grievance and appeals system, which addressed Booth's complaints but had no provision for recovery of money damages. After the prison authority denied his administrative grievance, Booth did not seek administrative review. Subsequently, the District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In affirming, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Booth's argument that the exhaustion requirement was inapplicable because the administrative process could not award him the monetary relief he sought. He appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case. The attorneys general of over 30 states filed amicus curiae briefs at the Court, urging affirmance of the decision.[1] Opinion of the CourtJustice David Souter wrote the unanimous majority opinion decision of the court, which agreed with the Third Circuit in rejecting Booth's claims. The Court held that even though the prison grievance procedure did not provide for requested monetary relief, Booth was nonetheless required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit with respect to prison conditions. Justice Souter wrote for the Court, "we think that Congress has mandated exhaustion clearly enough, regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures." Therefore, Booth's suit was premature. See also
References1. ^[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2624765790304776881 532 U.S.] at 733. Further reading
External links
| case=Booth v. Churner, {{ussc|532|731|2001|el=no}} | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/118434/booth-v-churner/ | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/532/731.html | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2624765790304776881 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/731/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep532/usrep532731/usrep532731.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1964 4 : United States Supreme Court cases|2001 in United States case law|United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court|United States criminal procedure case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。