Woodford v. Ngo
- Decided
- June 22, 2006
- Docket
- 05-416
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 8,220 timesSuperseded by statute (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (not yet verified) · Shaw v. Stewart
What later courts said
- holding that a prisoner must procedurally exhaust his claims by “complying] with the system’s critical procedural rules” — MacIas v. Zenk (2007)
- concluding that if a prisoner fails to file a procedurally proper grievance, he fails to satisfy the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement — Linnell Richmond v. Darren Settles (2011)
- holding that “completing] the administrative review process” is “a pre condition to [a prisoner] bringing suit in federal court” — Hernandez v. Dart (2016)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a prisoner can satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a), by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or [*84] appeal. We hold that proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.