{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014457831325301205, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.592592592592593, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Perceptions of the Consequences of the Prison Litigation Reform Act: A Comparison of State Attorneys General and Federal District Judges

This study examines the consequences of the Prison Litigation Reform Act by comparing survey responses of state attorneys general and federal district judges. Respondents from both groups agreed that the act reduced prisoner lawsuits, deterred prisoners from initiating civil-rights litigation, and had led to the termination of judicial orders and consent decrees and the cessation of the use of special masters in supervising judicial remedies. The two groups diverged in their perceptions of whether the act deters federal judges from taking remedial action and whether federal judges faithfully comply with the statute's requirements. These differences may reflect the judiciary's inclination to defend its image, yet the judges did not demonstrate such self-protectiveness when asked whether the act infringed upon judicial authority. This issue may reflect tension between judges' desire to protect their authority and their interest in reducing their prisoner caseloads. Overall, the act appears to be reducing prisoner litigation and limiting judges' authority to order remedies in prisoners' cases.