Appendix C to opinion of the Court

(2006); W. Va. Code Ann. §61-11-6 (Lexis 2005); Wis. Stat. § 939.05 (2003-2004); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §6-1-201 (2005).

B

Alaska Stat. § 11.16.110; Riley v. State, 60 P. 3d 204, 214, 219221 (Alaska App. 2002); Tarnef v. State, 512 P. 2d 923, 928 (Alaska 1973); State v. Phillips, 202 Ariz. 427, 435-437, 46 P. 3d 1048, 1056-1058 (2002); State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, 4–5, 126 P. 3d 148, 151–152 (2006); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-1-603; Bogdanov v. People, 941 P. 2d 247, 250-252, and n. 8, as amended by 955 P. 2d 997 (Colo. 1997), disapproved of on other grounds by Griego v. People, 19 P. 3d 1, 7-8 (Colo. 2001); Wilson-Bey v. United States, 903 A. 2d 818, 821–822 (D. C. 2006); Kitt v. United States, 904 A. 2d 348, 354-356 (D. C. 2006); Commonwealth v. Richards, 363 Mass. 299, 305308, 293 N. E. 2d 854, 859-860 (1973); Commonwealth v. Daughtry, 417 Mass. 136, 137-140, 627 N. E. 2d 928, 930-931 (1994); Mont. Code Ann. §45-2-302; State ex rel. Keyes v. Montana 13th Jud. Dist. Ct., 288 Mont. 27, 32-35, 955 P. 2d 639, 642-643 (1998); Sharma v. State, 118 Nev. 648, 653-657, 56 P. 3d 868, 871-873 (2002) (per curiam); cf. Bolden v. State, 121 Nev. 908, 921-922, 124 P. 3d 191, 200 (2005); State v. Carrasco, 1997-NMSC-047, ¶¶5-13, 946 P. 2d 1075, 1079–1080; State v. Bacon, 163 Vt. 279, 286-292, 658 A. 2d 54, 60-63 (1995); State v. Pitts, 174 Vt. 21, 23-27, 800 A. 2d 481, 483485 (2002).

C

See, e. g., 2 LaFave § 13.3(b), at 361-362, nn. 27-29 (2d ed. 2003 and Supp. 2007) (identifying cases applying the doctrine in California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, as well as in other States where the continued viability of the doctrine is unclear); State v. Medeiros, 599 A. 2d 723, 726 (R. I. 1991) (aider and abettor intends natural and probable consequences of his acts). See also Beasley v. State, 360 So. 2d 1275, 1278 (Fla. App. 1978); Ga. Code Ann. § 16-2-20; Jack

Appendix C to opinion of the Court

son v. State, 278 Ga. 235, 235-237, 599 S. E. 2d 129, 131-132 (2004); Jordan v. State, 272 Ga. 395, 395-397, 530 S. E. 2d 192, 193-194 (2000); Crawford v. State, 210 Ga. App. 36, 36-37, 435 S. E. 2d 64, 65 (1993); State v. Ehrmantrout, 100 Idaho 202, 595 P. 2d 1097 (1979) (per curiam); State v. Meyers, 95-750, pp. 5-7 (La. App. 11/26/96), 683 So. 2d 1378, 1382; State v. Holmes, 388 So. 2d 722, 725-727 (La. 1980); People v. Robinson, 475 Mich. 1, 8-9, 715 N. W. 2d 44, 49 (2006); Welch v. State, 566 So. 2d 680, 684-685 (Miss. 1990); State v. Roberts, 709 S. W. 2d 857, 863, and n. 6 (Mo. 1986); State v. Ferguson, 20 S. W. 3d 485, 497 (Mo. 2000); State v. Logan, 645 S. W. 2d 60, 64-65 (Mo. App. 1982); State v. Leonor, 263 Neb. 86, 9597, 638 N. W. 2d 798, 807 (2002); N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:2-6; State v. Torres, 183 N. J. 554, 566-567, 874 A. 2d 1084, 1092 (2005); State v. Weeks, 107 N. J. 396, 401-406, 526 A. 2d 1077, 1080-1082 (1987); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2923.03; State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St. 3d 240, 242-246, 754 N. E. 2d 796, 799801 (2001); State v. Herring, 94 Ohio St. 3d 246, 248-251, 762 N. E. 2d 940, 947-948 (2002); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 161.155; State v. Pine, 336 Ore. 194, 203-205, 206-208, and n. 6, 82 P. 3d 130, 135, 137, and n. 6 (2003); State v. Anlauf, 164 Ore. App. 672, 674-677, and n. 1, 995 P. 2d 547, 548-549, and n. 1 (2000); Hudgins v. Moore, 337 S. C. 333, 339, n. 5, 524 S. E. 2d 105, 108, n. 5 (1999); S. D. Codified Laws § 22-3-3; State v. Tofani, 2006 SD 63, ¶¶31-48, 719 N. W. 2d 391, 400-405; State v. Richmond, 90 S. W. 3d 648, 654-656 (Tenn. 2002); Tex. Penal Code Ann. §7.02; Ex parte Thompson, 179 S. W. 3d 549, 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Gordon v. State, 640 S. W. 2d 743, 758 (Tex. App. 1982); Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-202; State v. Alvarez, 872 P. 2d 450, 461 (Utah 1994); State v. Crick, 675 P. 2d 527, 534 (Utah 1983); State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W. Va. 58, 77, 511 S. E. 2d 469, 488 (1998); Jahnke v. State, 692 P. 2d 911, 921-922 (Wyo. 1984); Fales v. State, 908 P. 2d 404, 408 (Wyo. 1995); United States v. Edwards, 303 F. 3d 606, 637 (CA5 2002), cert. denied, 537 U. S. 1192 (2003); United States v. Walker, 99 F. 3d 439, 443 (CADC 1996); United States v.

Opinion of STEVENS, J.

Miller, 22 F. 3d 1075, 1078-1079 (CA11 1994); United States v. Moore, 936 F. 2d 1508, 1527 (CA7), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 991 (1991); United States v. Graewe, 774 F. 2d 106, 108, n. 1 (CA6 1985), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 1068 and 1069 (1986); United States v. Barnett, 667 F. 2d 835, 841 (CA9 1982); United States v. DeLaMotte, 434 F. 2d 289, 293 (CA2 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 921 (1971).

JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

While I join Parts I, II, and III-B of the Court's opinion, as well as its judgment, I do not join Part III-A. I am not prepared to disagree with anything said in Part III-A, but I believe we would be well advised to withhold comment on issues of California law until after they have been addressed by the Court of Appeals in the first instance. Limiting our decision to the question we granted certiorari to answer, though not a rigid rule, is generally prudent. Doing so seems particularly wise whenever reaching beyond the question presented requires analysis of disputed issues of state law. Because circuit judges are generally more familiar with the law of the States within their respective jurisdictions than we are, we have often followed the sound practice of deferring to the courts of appeals on such matters even when we did not necessarily share their views. See, e. g., Haring v. Prosise, 462 U. S. 306, 314 (1983); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 345-346, and n. 10 (1976) (collecting cases); see also Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 16 (2004). I would adhere to that settled practice in this

case.

Syllabus

JONES v. BOCK, WARDEN, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7058. Argued October 30, 2006-Decided January 22, 2007* The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), in order to address the large number of prisoner complaints filed in federal court, mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit. 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a). Petitioners, inmates in Michigan prisons, filed grievances using the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) grievance proc

After unsuccessfully seeking redress through that process, petitioner Jones filed a § 1983 suit against six prison officials. The District Court dismissed on the merits as to four of them and as to two others found that Jones had failed to adequately plead exhaustion in his complaint. Petitioner Williams also filed a § 1983 suit after his two MDOC grievances were denied. The District Court found that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to one of the grievances because he had not identified any of the respondents named in the lawsuit during the grievance process. While the court found Williams's other claim properly exhausted, it dismissed the entire suit under the Sixth Circuit's total exhaustion rule for PLRA cases. Petitioner Walton's § 1983 lawsuit also was dismissed under the total exhaustion rule because his MDOC grievance named only one of the six defendants in his lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in each case, relying on its procedural rules that require a prisoner to allege and demonstrate exhaustion in his complaint, permit suit only against defendants identified in the prisoner's grievance, and require courts to dismiss the entire action if the prisoner fails to satisfy the exhaustion requirement as to any single claim in his complaint.

Held: The Sixth Circuit's rules are not required by the PLRA, and crafting and imposing such rules exceeds the proper limits of the judicial role. Pp. 211-224.

(a) Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA, and inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints. There is no question that exhaustion is mandatory

*Together with No. 05-7142, Williams v. Overton et al., and Walton v. Bouchard et al. (see this Court's Rule 12.4), also on certiorari to the same court.

Syllabus

under the PLRA, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U. S. 516, 524, but it is less clear whether the prisoner must plead and demonstrate exhaustion in the complaint or the defendant must raise lack of exhaustion as an affirmative defense. Failure to exhaust is better viewed as an affirmative defense. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires simply a "short and plain statement of the claim" in a complaint, and PLRA claims are typically brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, which does not require exhaustion at all. The fact that the PLRA dealt extensively with exhaustion, but is silent on the issue whether exhaustion must be pleaded or is an affirmative defense, is strong evidence that the usual practice should be followed, and the practice under the Federal Rules is to regard exhaustion as an affirmative defense, including in the similar statutory scheme governing habeas corpus, Day v. McDonough, 547 U. S. 198, 208. Courts should generally not depart from the Federal Rules' usual practice based on perceived policy concerns. See, e. g., Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U. S. 163. Those courts that require prisoners to plead and demonstrate exhaustion contend that prisoner complaints must be treated outside of the typical framework if the PLRA's screening requirement is to function effectively. But the screening requirement does not—explicitly or implicitly-justify deviating from the usual procedural practice beyond the departures specified by the PLRA itself. Although exhaustion was a "centerpiece" of the PLRA, Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U. S. 81, 84, failure to exhaust was notably not added in terms to the enumerated grounds justifying dismissal upon early screening. Section 1997e(g)—which allows defendants to waive their right to reply to a prisoner complaint without being deemed to have admitted the complaint's allegations-shows that when Congress meant to depart from the usual procedural requirements, it did so expressly. Given that the PLRA does not itself require plaintiffs to plead exhaustion, such a result "must be obtained by . . . amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation." Leatherman, supra, at 168. Pp. 211-217.

(b) Exhaustion is not per se inadequate under the PLRA when an individual later sued was not named in the grievance. Nothing in the MDOC policy supports the conclusion that the grievance process was improperly invoked because an individual later named as a defendant was not named at the first step of the process; at the time each grievance was filed here, the MDOC policy did not specifically require a prisoner to name anyone in the grievance. Nor does the PLRA impose such a requirement. The "applicable procedural rules" that a prisoner must properly exhaust, Woodford, supra, at 88, are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself. As the MDOC's pro