100 Iowa L. Rev. 803 (2015)

Download PDF

Abstract

In an attempt to control nonmeritorious and frivolous prisoner litigation, Congress drafted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) in 1995. The legislative debate over the PLRA was largely anecdotal, and Congress neglected to define many of the key terms in the bill, including the physical injury requirement codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). This forced lower federal courts to interpret many of the PLRA’s key provisions. Since the PLRA’s passage, these federal courts have largely agreed that a qualifying injury under the PLRA must be more than de minimis but need not be significant. However, a circuit split has developed over the definition of de minimis injury with regard to failure to protect claims under the Eighth Amendment. This Note argues that the Supreme Court should adopt the Ninth Circuit’s definition of de minimis injury because the restrictive approach of the Fifth Circuit is unnecessary. Further, the Ninth Circuit’s expansive definition most closely aligns with Congress’s intent, while the Fifth Circuit’s narrow definition prevents meritorious lawsuits from being litigated.