Justin Thrasher

Administative Remedies in Prisons Justin Thrasher

Prison authorities in the United States have used the administrative remedy process as a vehicle to delay/deny treatment to inmates for their serious medical needs and other conditions. This process shows why courts should not require prisoners to utilize an administrative remedy process when prison authorities have a systemic practice of not taking corrective actions.



So the questions we present is why is there an increase in prisoner litigation and how may it be reduced. Utilizing conceptual, theoretical and normative approaches we believe the evidence shows that Congress, as well as state legislators, must change the law that requires an administrative remedy procedure to be both effective and adequate. Examination of this litigation against prison authorities, healthcare providers Corizon Inc and Wexford Health Sources show that had administrative remedies been effective and adequate, litigation would have been avoided. It is clear from examining this litigation that prison authorities refuse to administratively resolve issues, but instead, force litigation by inmates, thereby tying up a substantial agency, judicial and individual resources. Their lawyers, as their insurance companies pay claims, and force litigation. Administrative remedies are unavailable when state authorities have refused to exercise their authority to correct continuing violations within the U. S Prisons.


Authors Justin Thrasher and Anant Kumar Tripati have spent extensive time examing these remedies and now share them with you.