Provides relative to lawsuit procedures for incarcerated individuals
Summary
HB 193 revises Louisiana law governing lawsuits filed by incarcerated individuals. The bill keeps the existing requirement that a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before asserting a state-law claim, but it adds more specific consequences for failing to do so. If a prisoner files suit before the grievance process is complete, the court must dismiss the case without prejudice. If the prisoner misses the deadlines for starting or pursuing the administrative process, the claim is treated as abandoned and any later suit on that claim must be dismissed with prejudice.
The bill also states that a dismissal under this section does not interrupt prescription, meaning the filing of a premature prisoner suit will not stop the running of the applicable limitations period. In addition, failure to exhaust administrative remedies may be raised through a dilatory exception under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the House floor amended the bill to change that procedural vehicle from a peremptory exception to a dilatory exception.
Impact
HB 193 amends R.S. 15:1184(A)(2), which is part of Louisiana’s prisoner litigation framework. The measure tightens procedural rules for inmate civil suits by clarifying when claims must be dismissed, when dismissal is with or without prejudice, and how exhaustion defenses may be asserted. It also affects prescription rules by providing that a dismissed prisoner suit does not interrupt prescription, which may limit later refiling options for incarcerated plaintiffs.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support in the House, passing final passage 70-24. The vote suggests broad agreement that prisoner lawsuits should be tied more strictly to completion of administrative grievance procedures. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows support primarily through the final vote rather than recorded debate.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s stricter treatment of prisoner claims when administrative deadlines are missed, because it converts those claims into abandoned claims subject to dismissal with prejudice. Another likely area of disagreement is the prescription language, since making dismissal non-interruptive can reduce an incarcerated person’s ability to refile. The House amendment changing the exhaustion objection from a peremptory exception to a dilatory exception also indicates some procedural concern about how courts should handle these defenses.