翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Booth Newspapers ・ Booth Papers ・ Booth Park ・ Booth Peninsula ・ Booth Savage ・ Booth School ・ Booth School of Business ・ Booth Spur ・ Booth State Scenic Corridor ・ Booth Stradivarius ・ Booth Street ・ Booth Tarkington ・ Booth Theater (Independence, Kansas) ・ Booth Theatre ・ Booth University College ・ Booth v. Churner ・ Booth Western Art Museum ・ Booth's Gin ・ Booth's multiplication algorithm ・ Booth's Theatre ・ Booth, Alabama ・ Booth, East Riding of Yorkshire ・ Booth, Texas ・ Booth, West Virginia ・ Booth-Lovelace House ・ Booth-Weir House ・ Bootham ・ Bootham Crescent ・ Bootham Park Hospital ・ Bootham School Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Booth v. Churner ： ウィキペディア英語版 Booth v. Churner ''Booth v. Churner'', , was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the extent to which a state prisoner must first utilize an administrative review process provided by the state, prior to filing a case in federal district court. The Court held that Booth still had a mechanism of administrative review, and thus his claim was premature. ==Background== The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires a prisoner to exhaust "such administrative remedies as are available" before suing over prison conditions.〔 Timothy Booth, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, Pennsylvania, filed a suit in District Court, claiming that corrections officers violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Booth sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. At the time of Booth's suit, Pennsylvania provided an administrative grievance and appeals system, which addressed Booth's complaints but had no provision for recovery of money damages.〔 After the prison authority denied his administrative grievance, Booth did not seek administrative review. Subsequently, the District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In affirming, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Booth's argument that the exhaustion requirement was inapplicable because the administrative process could not award him the monetary relief he sought.〔 He appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case. The attorneys general of over 30 states filed amicus curiae briefs at the Court, urging affirmance of the decision.〔(532 U.S. ) at 733.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Booth v. Churner」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.