Ross v. Blake
| Ross v. Blake | |
|---|---|
| Argued March 29, 2016 Decided June 6, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Michael Ross, Petitioner v. Shaidon Blake |
| Docket no. | 15-339 |
| Citations | 578 U.S. ___ (more) 136 S. Ct. 1850; 195 L. Ed. 2d 117 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Blake v. Ross, 787 F.3d 693 (4th Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 614 (2015). |
| Holding | |
| The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirement to exhaust administrative remedies does not have a “special circumstances” exception, but inmates are only required to exhaust administrative remedies that are genuinely available to them. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in part) |
| Concurrence | Breyer (in part) |
| Laws applied | |
| Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 | |
Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "special circumstances" cannot excuse an inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, but clarified that inmates are required to exhaust only administrative remedies that are genuinely available. In so doing, it vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.