| 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,[1] but clarified that inmates are required to exhaust only administrative remedies that are genuinely available.[2] In so doing, it vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[3][4]