NACo Legal Advocacy: Perttu v. Richards
Author
Paige Mellerio
Joe Jackson
Upcoming Events
Related News
County Nexus
Perttu v. Richards has implications on the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and could increase the amount of Section 1983 inmate-initiated cases against county jails that reach federal court, ultimately resulting in counties having to expend resources on frivolous lawsuits.
Background
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which was enacted in response to over 40,000 inmate-initiated cases clogging federal courts, prisoners must try and resolve their complaint through the prison’s grievance structure, exhausting all available administrative procedures. Kyle Richards, an inmate at the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) filed a complaint in court that Thomas Perttu, a Residential Unit Manager (RUM) employed by MDOC, retaliated against inmates and destroyed their property, therefore violating their First, Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights.
Ordinarily, the PLRA constrains Richards’ ability to go to court, but Richards is arguing that he has the right to go to court and obtain a jury under the Seventh Amendment since facts determining whether he exhausted available administrative remedies are intertwined with the merits of the case. The Sixth Circuit agreed with Richards, finding that the inmate’s Seventh Amendment rights are superior to the PLRA and a federal jury is appropriate whereas the Seventh Circuit held a conflicting opinion, finding that inmates have no right to a jury to determine whether they exhausted administrative remedies regardless of whether the exhaustion is intertwined with the merits of the case. Perttu cited the circuit split in petition for cert. and argues that the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation undermines Congressional intent and that “threshold issues” remedies do not implicate the Seventh Amendment.
NACo Advocacy
Stay tuned for a Local Government Legal Center amicus brief in support of the petitioner, Perttu, which will argue the Sixth Circuit’s ruling should be reversed based on the significant cost it could place on county governments as we support 91 percent of all local jails and the congressional intent of the PLRA to shield state and local governments from frivolous lawsuits.
Current Status
Oral argument scheduled for February 25, 2025.
2024-2025 Supreme Court Term
NACo Legal Advocacy: City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai
The question at hand in City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai is whether or not the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard preempts state tort claims brought forth by local governments alleging that Kia and Hyundai’s failure to install “reasonable” anti-theft technology constitutes negligence and public nuisance.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Perttu v. Richards
Perttu v. Richards has implications on the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and could increase the amount of Section 1983 inmate-initiated cases against county jails that reach federal court, ultimately resulting in counties having to expend resources on frivolous lawsuits.
NACo Legal Advocacy: McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation could make it more difficult for counties to challenge FCC orders, many of which have taken steps to preempt and curtail local authority by limiting counties’ abilities to manage their own right of way and assess fair market value permitting and impact fees on providers seeking to construct, modify or extend telecommunications infrastructure in their communities.
NACo Legal Advocacy: San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implications for the ability of county governments that own and operate wastewater treatment facilities to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Lackey v. Stinnie
Lackey v. Stinnie will impact the ability of state and local governments to avoid paying litigation fees in a civil rights case if they change their conduct (i.e. repeal a law) after a court has granted a preliminary injunction.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Garland v. VanDerStok
Garland v. VanDerStok has implications for the ability of county law enforcement to uphold public safety and investigate crimes involving ghost guns.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Stanley v. City of Sanford
Stanley v. City of Sanford will impact the ability of county governments to balance budgets by reducing or eliminating post-employment benefits for disability retirees.
NACo Legal Advocacy: EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera
EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera could make it more difficult for county governments to prove exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which would increase the potential for costly litigation.
Featured Initiative
Supreme Court Advocacy Hub
Related News
Congress advances Second Chance Act reauthorization
On December 4, the Senate passed the Second Chance Reauthorization Act (S.4477) by unanimous consent, a major milestone for supporting county reentry programs. NACo supports this legislation, which would reauthorize funding for Second Chance Act programs for five years.
NACo Legal Advocacy: City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai
The question at hand in City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai is whether or not the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard preempts state tort claims brought forth by local governments alleging that Kia and Hyundai’s failure to install “reasonable” anti-theft technology constitutes negligence and public nuisance.
NACo Legal Advocacy: McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation could make it more difficult for counties to challenge FCC orders, many of which have taken steps to preempt and curtail local authority by limiting counties’ abilities to manage their own right of way and assess fair market value permitting and impact fees on providers seeking to construct, modify or extend telecommunications infrastructure in their communities.