U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics
F
Federal Justice Statistics Program

Prisoner Petitions in the
Federal Courts, 1980-96
Justice Statistics Program
Prisoner petitions filed by State prison inmates in U.S. district court, 1995

Petitions per 1,000 inmates
Fewer than 25
25 to 50
50 to 100
100 or more

e
d
e
r
a
l

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Prisoner Petitions in the
Federal Courts, 1980-96
Federal Justice Statistics Program

By John Scalia
BJS Statistician

October 1997, NCJ-164615

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Contents

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director

Introduction, 1

John Scalia of the Bureau of Justice Statistics wrote this
report. Kevin J. Strom compiled the time-series data.
David Rauma, Ph.D., and George Cort of the Federal
Judicial Center provided the data to BJS for analysis.
Steven R. Schlesinger, Ph.D. of the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts and Roger A. Hanson of the
National Center for State Courts reviewed the report
for content. Carol DeFrances and Andrew H. Press of
BJS provided statistical review. Tom Hester and Tina
Dorsey edited the report. Marilyn Marbrook, assisted
by Yvonne Boston and Jayne Robinson, administered
production.
Data presented in this report may be obtained from
the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the
University of Michigan, 1-800-999-0960.
An electronic version of this report and other reports
are available from the BJS Internet page:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

ii

Prisoners Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

Highlights, iii

Prisoner petitions in U.S. district courts, 3
Prisoner petitions in U.S. courts of appeal, 10
Background information: Types of prisoner
petitions, 14
Methodology, 17

Highlights

Between 1980 and 1996, the number of petitions filed in U.S. district
courts by Federal and State inmates
increased from 23,230 to 68,235.
While the number of petitions filed
increased, the rate at which inmates
filed petitions decreased 17% from
72.7 petitions per 1,000 inmates to
60.5.
Fewer than 2% the petitions were
adjudicated in favor of the inmate;
most (62%) were dismissed.
24% of the petitions terminated in
U.S. district court were later
appealed.
Between 1980 and 1996, the number of prisoner petitions appealed increased from 3,675 to 17,002.
88% of Federal and State inmates
represented themselves on appeal.

Prisoner petitions filed in Federal courts, 1980-96
Number of
petitions
18,000

U.S. courts of appeal

16,500

13,500

Total prisoner
petitions

10,500

State

7,500

4,500

Federal
1,500
0
1980

1991

1985

1996

Petitions by State inmates
State inmates initated 81% of all
prisoner petitions filed during 1996;
most (73%) alleged a civil rights
violation.
21% of State inmates under a sentence of death had a habeas corpus
petition active in the Federal courts
during 1995.

U.S. district court
72,000
63,000

52,500

Total prisoner
petitions

42,000

Petitions by Federal Inmates
74% of the petitions filed by Federal
inmates challenged the constitutionality of the sentence imposed.
Between 1987 and 1996, the number of petitions by Federal inmates
challenging the sentence imposed increased from 1,664 to 9,729.
43% of the petitions by Federal inmates challenging the the sentence
were later appealed.

State
31,500

21,000

10,500

Federal
3,500
0
1980

1985

1991

1996

Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96 iii

Introduction

Overview

More than half of the prisoner petitions filed in the Federal courts (both
Pursuant to Federal law, Federal and
the U.S. district courts and U.S.
State inmates are able to file suits in
courts of appeal) alleged civil rights
the Federal courts to: (1) challenge
violations. About a quarter of the petiWhile the number of prisoner petitions
the constitutionality of their imprisontions sought habeas corpus relief.
filed increased between 1980 and
ment (habeas corpus); (2) redress
Petitions filed by Federal inmates,
1996, the rate at which both Federal
deprivations by government officials
however, primarily challenged the
of any civil rights secured by the Con- and State inmates filed these petitions
constitutionality of the sentence imdeclined. During 1980 approximately
stitution; (3) compel government offiposed: approximately two-thirds of
72.7 prisoner petitions were filed in
cials to perform a duty owed to the
the petitions filed by Federal inmates
petitioner (mandamus); and (4), in the U.S. district court for every 1,000 inwere petitions to vacate the sentence
case of Federal inmates, to challenge mates incarcerated in Federal and
imposed.
State prisons. By 1996 the filing rate
the constitutionality of the sentence
Tracking prisoner petitions
had decreased approximately 17%
imposed (vacate sentence).
through the Federal courts
to 60.5 petitions for every 1,000
The growth in the Federal and State
inmates.
Petitions filed by Federal and State
prison population over the last 16
inmates in the Federal courts can
An increasing proportion of prisoner
years has been accompanied by an
take several years to process to their
petitions terminated in U.S. district
increase in prisoner litigation in the
conclusion. After the district court discourt were appealed to the U.S.
Federal courts  both U.S. district
poses of the petition, the petitioner
courts
of
appeal.
Between
1980
and
courts (trial) and U.S. courts of appeal
has the option to appeal the district
1996
the
rate
at
which
prisoner
peti(appellate). Between 1980 and 1996
court ruling to the U.S. courts of aptions
were
appealed
increased
48%
the number of prisoner petitions filed
peal. Of those prisoner petitions filed

from
17.2
appellate
filings
for
every
in U.S. district courts by Federal and
in U.S. district court by Federal and
State inmates increased nearly three- 100 district court terminations during
State inmates during 1990, almost all
1980 to 25.4 during 1996.
fold from 23,230 during 1980 to
(99%) had been disposed of by the
68,235 during 1996. Similarly, the
district court by the end of 1995
number of appeals involving prisoner
issues has increased fourfold from
3,675 during 1980 to 16,992 during
1996.

Tracking prisoner petitions through the Federal courts, 1990-95
Filed in U.S. district court during 1990: 40,695

Adjudicated: 17,662

Pending: 250

For government: 14,417

Cases dismissed: 22,783

For both: 156

For inmate: 549

Not reported: 2,540

Appealed: 106

Appealed: 3,440

Appealed: 156

Appealed: 147

Appealed: 676

Dismissed: 6

Dismissed: 156

Dismissed: 5

Dismissed: 7

Dismissed: 42

Dismissed: 234

Affirmed*: 31

Affirmed*: 1,473

Affirmed*: 7

Affirmed*: 62

Affirmed*: 314

Affirmed*: 2,311

Reversed*: 9

Reversed*: 204

Reversed*: 1

Reversed*: 7

Reversed*: 46

Reversed*: 329

Remanded: 2

Remanded: 17

Remanded: 0

Remanded: 0

Remanded: 4

Remanded: 25

Pending: 61

Pending: 1,618

Pending: 12

Pending: 74

Pending: 281

Pending: 2,439

Transferred: 1

Transferred: 30

Transferred: 0

Transferred: 1

Transferred: 1

Transferred: 30

Appealed: 5,254

*Includes cases partially affirmed and partially reversed.

Figure 1

Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

1

(figure 1). About a quarter (23.7%) of Petitions pending
those cases filed in U.S. district courts
Fewer than 1% of those prisoner petiduring 1990 were appealed to the
tions filed with the district court during
U.S. courts of appeal.
1990 were still pending with the disFewer than 2% of those petitions filed trict court at the end of 1995. However, of the 250 cases identified as
during 1990 were, at least partially,
pending with the district court at the
adjudicated in favor of the inmate by
the end of 1995. Approximately 11% end of 1995, about 42% had been
appealed. (A litigant may file interlocuwere still pending with either the
tory appeals addressing specific
district court or the appellate court
aspects of the case or appeals ad5 years after the initial filing.
dressing the timeliness of the district
Petitions dismissed
court’s handling of the case.) Twothirds of those cases disposed of by
More than half (56%) of the prisoner
the appellate courts affirmed the dispetitions filed in U.S. district court
trict courts’ handling of the cases.
during 1990 were dismissed by the
district court. About a quarter (23.1%)
Legal representation of Federal
of those cases dismissed were apand State inmates
pealed. By the end of 1995, the
appellate courts had disposed of 54% While prisoner petitions involve crimiof these cases. Of those cases disnal defendants and  particularly in
posed of by the appellate courts, the
the case of habeas corpus  roudistrict courts rulings were affirmed
tinely address criminal law issues,
(at least in part) in 80.7% of the cases these proceedings are considered civil
and reversed (at least in part) in 11% rather than criminal in nature. Unlike
of the cases.
criminal proceedings, parties involved
in civil proceedings are not entitled to
Petitions adjudicated
court-appointed counsel if they are
Less than half (43%) of the prisoner
indigent.1 The Federal courts, howpetitions filed in U.S. district court dur- ever, are provided some discretion in
ing 1990 were adjudicated by the dis- appointing counsel for indigent lititrict court. Almost all (95%) of those
gants. Counsel for the indigent is
cases adjudicated (where a judgment appointed at the discretion of the
was reported) were adjudicated exclu- courts when warranted such as in
sively in favor of the government 
cases where the facts are undisputed
in an additional 1% of the cases both but the issues are too complex for an
the government and the inmate parinmate to handle.2
tially prevailed.
Previous BJS reports indicated that
About a quarter (24%) of those cases more than 90% of inmates who file
adjudicated by the district court were
prisoner petitions in U.S. district court
appealed. The government filed an
file their petitions pro se  representappeal in 26.8% of the cases decided ing themselves before the court.3
in favor of the inmate whereas inSimilarly, 88% of the inmates involved
mates appealed 23.9% of the cases
in an appeal of a prisoner petition
decided in favor of the government.
represented themselves on appeal
The government succeeded in having
the district courts’ ruling overturned in 1Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987.
2
28 U.S.C. § 1915.
10% of the cases.
3
Roger A. Hanson and Henry W.K. Daley,
Federal Habeas Corpus Review, BJS
Discussion Paper, NCJ-155504, 1995.

2 Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

(table 1). (Data describing the petitioners’ representation were unavailable for petitions handled in U.S.
district courts.) Federal inmates were
more likely than State inmates to be
represented by legal counsel on
appeal. Legal counsel represented
approximately 18% of Federal inmates on appeal, compared to fewer
than 10% of State inmates.
Inmates who alleged civil rights violations were more likely to represent
themselves on appeal than other petitioners. During 1995, 91% of Federal
inmates and 94.7% of State inmates
who filed civil rights petitions represented themselves on appeal,
whereas 76.3% of Federal inmates
and 81.6% of State inmates seeking
habeas corpus relief represented
themselves on appeal.

Table 1. Representation of Federal
and State inmates in cases filed
in U.S. courts of appeal, 1995
Jurisdiction and
type of petition
Total
Federal
Vacate sentence
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Civil rights
Other

Legal
Number Pro se counsel
14,992
3,459
2,221
456
0
456
557
225

11,533
State
3,939
Habeas corpus
129
Death penalty
3,810
Other
7,529
Civil rights
65
Other

88.3% 11.7%
81.8%
80.2
76.3
--76.3
91.0
85.3

18.2%
19.8
23.7
--23.7
9.0
14.7

90.2% 9.8%
81.6
18.4
3.9
96.1
84.3
15.7
94.7
5.3
92.3
7.7

--- No cases of this type occurred in the data.
Data source: Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts, civil data file (1995).

Prisoner petitions in U.S. district courts

Prisoner petitions filed
During 1995 Federal and State inmates filed 60,855 prisoner petitions
in U.S. district court (table 2). Twothirds of the petitions filed alleged civil
rights violations. Habeas corpus petitions represented approximately 23%
of the caseload. The remainder were
mandamus petitions (1%) or petitions
by Federal inmates challenging a sentence (10%). State inmates filed the
majority (86%) of the petitions.
While most of the petitions filed in the
Federal courts are filed by State inmates, because the Federal courts
have original jurisdiction over matters
dealing with Federal inmates, Federal
inmates file petitions in Federal court
at a greater rate than State inmates.
During 1995 Federal inmates filed
96.5 petitions for every 1,000 inmates
in Federal custody compared with
52.8 petitions for every 1,000 State
inmates. However, compared to
State inmates, Federal inmates file
few civil rights, habeas corpus, or
mandamus petitions. The majority
(67%) of the petitions filed by Federal
inmates challenged the constitutionality of the sentence imposed.
During 1995 State prison inmates
incarcerated in Iowa (148.8 petitions
per 1,000 inmates), Arkansas (142.0),
and Mississippi (124.6) filed petitions
in U.S. district courts at the highest
rates (cover map). Compared to
those in other regions of the United
States, inmates incarcerated in the
South filed petitions at the highest
rate  59.8 petitions per 1,000 inmates (not shown in a table). More
than three-quarters of the petitions
filed by Southern inmates alleged civil
rights violations. Inmates incarcerated in Massachusetts (20.4), North
Dakota (22.4), and Ohio (24.7), by
contrast, filed petitions at the lowest
rates.

Table 2. Petitions filed in U.S. district court by Federal and State inmates, 1995

Region
and jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State

Vacate
Total sentence
60,855
5,814
8,637
5,814
52,218
--

Northeast
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Midwest
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin

7,020
450
98
212
81
845
2,495
2,697
90
52
10,362
1,587
1,604
879
351
1,581
159
1,903
373
15
1,097
105
708

------------------------

South
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia

25,541
1,941
1,188
295
272
3,034
1,904
946
1,899
928
1,261
848
758
850
1,326
5,263
2,605
223

-------------------

Type of petition
Habeas corpus
Death
Manpenalty Other damus
169
13,966
863
6
1,260
485
163
12,706
378
12
0
**
**

Civil
1995 prison
rights population*
40,043 1,078,545
1,072
89,538
38,971
989,007

**
**
11
0
**
5
0
**

1,696
75
17
62
28
241
627
597
32
17
2,464
279
588
87
83
368
46
405
50
4
358
50
146

52
3
0
9
1
1
14
20
4
0
59
17
10
10
3
3
0
4
0
2
7
0
3

5,260
372
81
141
52
603
1,854
2,068
54
35
7,806
1,276
1,004
782
265
1,210
113
1,483
323
9
727
55
559

156,305
14,681
1,455
10,369
2,002
22,808
68,489
32,402
2,854
1,245
192,757
37,658
16,125
5,906
7,055
41,112
4,628
19,151
3,051
670
44,338
1,864
11,199

92
6
2
1
**
10
0
0
3
0
3
1
7
3
0
46
10
**

5,788
517
192
76
19
1,100
375
165
319
202
180
82
286
183
234
1,437
364
57

182
1
6
1
5
39
21
6
28
5
1
7
3
7
10
26
14
2

19,479
1,417
988
217
248
1,885
1,508
775
1,549
721
1,077
758
462
657
1,082
3,754
2,217
164

427,105
20,549
8,364
4,799
9,277
63,879
34,266
9,928
16,976
21,124
10,124
27,313
14,568
18,864
13,040
127,766
23,890
2,378

W

0
0
12
**
**
33
15
2
**

W

9,155
-26
2,711
81
6,337
212,840
West
78
-**
28
0
50
2,832
Alaska
1,638
-3
332
14
1,289
21,341
Arizona
4,172
-17
1,503
35
2,617
135,133
California
672
-0
97
2
573
9,508
Colorado
112
-**
30
1
81
2,812
Hawaii
105
-0
25
0
80
3,079
Idaho
106
-1
24
0
81
1,601
Montana
702
-2
214
3
483
7,599
Nevada
206
-0
78
0
128
4,209
New Mexico
387
-2
135
23
227
7,812
Oregon
207
-1
24
1
181
3,985
Utah
685
-0
195
2
488
11,679
Washington
85
-W
26
0
59
1,250
Wyoming
Note: Excludes transfers, remands, and statistical closures. Detail does not sum to total; total for
State includes petitions filed by inmates in the custody of the outlying territories  Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands, Guam, and the Northern Marianas Islands.
-- No Federal jurisdiction.
*Data source: BJS, Correctional Populations in the United States, 1995, NCJ-163916.
**Jurisdiction without a death penalty during 1995.
WJurisdiction had no prisoners under a sentence of death during 1995.

Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

3

Trends in prisoner petitions filed
Cases filed
Between 1980 and 1996 the number
of petitions filed in U.S. district courts
by Federal and State inmates increased threefold  from 23,230 during 1980 to 68,235 during 1996 (table
3). Petitions filed by Federal inmates
increased at a slightly faster rate (8%
average annual rate) than those filed
by State inmates (7% average annual
increase).
The increase in State prisoner petitions primarily reflects a threefold increase in the number of civil rights
petitions filed. Civil rights petitions
filed by State inmates increased an
average of 8% annually  increasing
from 12,395 during 1980 to 39,996
during 1996. Federal civil rights peti-

tions, by contrast, increased 5% annually  from 603 during 1980 to
1,219 during 1996.

Total

Total

1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996

23,230 3,661
27,655 4,053
29,275 4,328
30,765 4,354
31,093 4,526
33,452 6,262
33,758 4,432
37,279 4,507
38,825 5,130
41,472 5,577
42,623 6,611
42,452 6,817
48,417 6,997
53,436 8,456
57,928 7,700
63,634 8,951
68,235 13,069

1,413
1,629
1,927
1,914
1,905
3,405
1,679
1,808
1,867
1,818
1,967
2,112
1,507
1,467
1,441
1,343
1,703

10,500
7,500
4,500
1,500
0
1980

Total
Vacate sentence
Habeas corpus
1991
1985

1996

Figure 2

While the increase in petitions filed by
State inmates reflects an increase in
civil rights petitions, the increase in
the number of petitions filed by Federal inmates primarily reflects an
increase in the number of petitions
challenging the sentence imposed.

Jurisdiction and type of petition
Federal
State
Vacate Habeas ManCivil
Habeas Mansentence corpus damus rights
Total corpus damus
1,322
1,248
1,186
1,311
1,427
1,527
1,556
1,664
2,071
2,526
2,970
3,328
3,983
5,379
4,628
5,988
9,729

13,500

Similarly, the number of habeas corpus petitions by State inmates increased at a faster rate than those by
Federal inmates. The number of
State habeas corpus petitions increased almost 5% annually  from
7,029 during 1980 to 14,726 during
1996  while the number of Federal
petitions remained relatively stable.

Table 3. Prisoner petitions filed in U.S. district court by Federal
and State inmates, 1980-96

Year

Prisoner petitions filed by Federal
inmates, 1980-96

323
342
381
339
372
373
427
313
330
315
525
378
597
695
491
510
444

603
834
834
790
822
957
770
722
862
918
1,149
999
910
915
1,140
1,110
1,219

19,569
23,602
24,947
26,411
26,567
27,190
29,326
32,772
33,695
35,895
36,012
35,635
41,420
44,980
50,228
54,593
55,166

7,029
7,786
8,036
8,523
8,335
8,520
9,040
9,524
9,867
10,545
10,817
10,325
11,296
11,574
11,908
13,627
14,726

Note: Includes transfers, remands, and statistical closures.
Data source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Report of the Proceedings
of the Judicial Conference of the United States, (table C-2).

4 Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

145
177
172
202
198
180
215
276
270
311
352
267
479
388
395
397
444

Civil
rights
12,395
15,639
16,739
17,686
18,034
18,490
20,071
22,972
23,558
25,039
24,843
25,043
29,645
33,018
37,925
40,569
39,996

Between 1980 and 1996, petitions by
Federal inmates challenging the sentence imposed increased more than
sevenfold  from 1,322 during 1980
to 9,729 during 1996 (figure 2).4
Most (96%) of the increase in petitions challenging the sentence imposed followed the implementation of
major reforms to Federal sentencing
policy. The Sentencing Reform Act
of 1984, which became effective on
November 1, 1987, established the
Federal sentencing guidelines, abolished parole, reduced good conduct
time, and required increased terms of
imprisonment for recidivists. Further,
the Sentencing Reform Act, the AntiDrug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988,
and the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990, established mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment
for defendants trafficking drugs and
defendants using a firearm to commit
an offense.
4

The increase in petitions to vacate the sentence
imposed between 1995 and 1996 may be the
result of the Supreme Court decision in Bailey v.
United States, __ U.S. __, 116 S.CT. 501, 113
L.Ed. 2d 472(1996). In this case the Supreme
Court limited the applicability of 18 U.S.C. §
924(e) to those cases where the defendant
actually used the weapon while committing the
offense rather than merely possessing it.

Many defendants have challenged
these sentencing reforms (and the
sentences imposed pursuant to these
reforms) on direct appellate review.
During 1995, 47,556 defendants were
convicted and sentenced in the Federal courts; 21% of these defendants
filed a direct appeal challenging some
aspect of the sentence imposed.

prisons (both Federal and State facilities) increased an average of 8.2%
annually  from 319,598 inmates incarcerated during 1980 to 1.13 million
during 1996 (table 4). The Federal
prison population increased at a
slightly faster rate (9% annually) than
the State prison population (8%
annually).

Most (84%) of these appellants, however, were unsuccessful. Having unsuccessfully challenged the sentence
imposed on direct appeal, many Federal inmates have turned to civil remedies in another attempt to have the
sentence vacated or otherwise
reduced.

The increase in the prison population
has been accompanied by a similar
increase in the number of prisoner
petitions filed in Federal court. However, accounting for the increase in
the prison population, the rate at
which inmates filed petitions declined
by approximately 17% between 1980
and 1996. During 1980, 72.7 petitions
were filed for every 1,000 inmates incarcerated in both Federal and State
prisons. By 1996 the filing rate had
decreased to 60.5 petitions (figure 3).

Filing rate

between 1980 and 1985, the rate at
which Federal inmates filed prisoner
petitions decreased by 43% between
1985 and 1995. This decline was
largely attributable to substantial decreases in the rates in which Federal
inmates filed habeas corpus, civil
rights, and mandamus petitions. The
rate at which Federal inmates filed
habeas corpus petitions declined by
84%; civil rights by 53%; and mandamus by 46%.
However, between 1995 and 1996,
the filing rate increased by 37%. This
increase was primarily attributable to
a substantial increase in the rate at
which Federal inmates filed petitions
to vacate the sentence imposed.
Beginning in 1988 (after the implementation of Federal sentencing reforms) petitions by Federal inmates to
vacate the sentence imposed began
to increase. While Federal inmates
were filing habeas corpus, civil rights,
and mandamus petitions at lower
rates, they filed petitions to vacate the
sentence at higher rates. Between

While the number of prisoner petitions
filed in U.S. district courts substantially increased between 1980 and
1996, the Nation’s prison population
was also substantially increasing. Be- The filing rate for Federal inmates
varied substantially between 1980 and
tween 1980 and 1996, the number of
1996. After an overall increase
persons incarcerated in the Nation's
Table 4. Number of persons held in
Federal and State prisons, 1980-96
Year

Total

Federal

State

1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996*

319,598
360,029
402,914
423,898
448,264
487,593
526,436
562,814
606,810
683,382
743,382
792,535
850,566
909,381
990,147
1,078,545
1,128,274

23,779
26,778
27,311
28,945
30,875
35,781
39,781
42,478
44,205
53,387
58,838
63,930
72,071
80,815
85,500
89,538
95,088

295,819
333,251
375,603
394,953
417,389
451,812
486,655
520,336
562,605
629,995
684,544
728,605
778,495
828,566
904,647
989,007
1,033,186

Note: Data represent the population as of
December 31;
*Preliminary numbers.
Source: BJS, Correctional Populations
in the United States, annual.

Prisoner petitions filed in U.S. district court, 1980-96
Petitions
filed per 1,000
inmates
200

160

Federal prisoners

120

80

Overall
State prisoners

40

0
1980

1985

1988

1991

1996

Figure 3

Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

5

1987 and 1996, the rate at which Federal inmates filed petitions challenging
the sentence imposed increased by
161%  from 39.2 petitions per 1,000
inmates during 1987 to 102.3 during
1996.
Compared to the filing rate for Federal
inmates, the filing rate for State inmates was relatively constant.
Nonetheless, the filing rate for State
inmates declined 19% between 1980
and 1996  from 66.2 petitions per
1,000 inmates during 1980 to 53.4
petitions during 1996. Three-quarters
of the decrease in State petitions was
attributable to a decline in the rate at
which State inmates filed habeas corpus petitions. The filing rate of State
habeas corpus petitions declined 40%
 from 23.8 petitions per 1,000 inmates during 1980 to 14.3 petitions
during 1995. The filing rate for State

civil rights petitions declined by 25%
 from 41.9 during 1980 to 38.7
during 1995.
Prisoner petitions adjudicated in
U.S. district court

Mode of disposition
During 1995 U.S. district courts disposed of 57,982 prisoner petitions.
More than half of these petitions were
dismissed (table 5). Of those cases
terminated during 1995 

Total

Number*

Overall, few (1.8%) prisoner petitions
were adjudicated at trial. Civil rights
petitions, however, were the most
likely to be adjudicated by trial: almost
2.6% of civil rights petitions filed by
State inmates and 1% of those filed
by Federal inmates.

Thirty-six percent of the cases were
disposed of by means such as consent decrees, judgments on pretrial
64% of those petitions filed by Fed- motions, or arbitrated judgments. Of
eral inmates and 62% of those filed by these cases, most (80%) were disposed of following a pretrial motion
State inmates were dismissed;
(not shown in a table).
66% of those petitions by Federal
Disposition
inmates challenging the sentence
imposed were dismissed; and
Of the 57,982 prisoner petitions termiMandamus petitions were dismissed nated in U.S. district court during
at the highest rate: 72% of those peti- 1995, 1.2% were adjudicated in favor
of the plaintiff  the inmate (table 6).

Table 5. Mode of disposition for prisoner petitions
terminated in U.S. district court, 1995
Jurisdiction and
type of petition

tions filed by Federal inmates and
71% of those by State inmates.

Percent of cases
Judgment
Dismissed
Trial
Other

57,968

62.1%

1.8%

36.1%

Federal
Vacate sentence
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Mandamus
Civil rights

7,797
4,876
1,252
5
1,247
539
1,130

64.3%
66.1
61.2
--61.1
72.4
56.0

.3%
.2
.2
--.2
0
1.0

35.4%
33.7
38.7
--38.7
27.6
43.0

State
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Mandamus
Civil rights

50,159
11,838
129
11,709
378
37,943

61.8%
58.7
66.7
58.6
70.9
62.7

2.0%
.2
.8
.2
.8
2.6

36.2%
41.1
32.6
41.2
28.3
34.7

Note: Excludes transfers, remands, and statistical closures. Trial
includes cases for which a trial was scheduled but not necessarily
completed before dispositions. In some cases, the parties might
have settled before the completion of the trial.
---Too few cases to obtain statistically reliable data.
Data source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
civil data file (1995).
*Includes 12 cases for which jurisdiction could not be determined
but excludes 14 cases for which mode of disposition could not
be determined.

6 Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

Table 6. Disposition of prisoner petitions
terminated in U.S. district court, 1995

Jurisdiction and
type of petition
Total

Percent of petitions disposed
Judgment
GovernNumber* Dismissed Inmate ment
Both
57,982

62.1%

1.2%

36.3%

.4%

Federal
Vacate sentence
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Mandamus
Civil rights

7,804
4,883
1,252
5
1,247
539
1,130

64.2%
66.0
61.2
--61.1
72.4
55.8

3.8%
5.1
2.0
--1.9
2.0
.6

31.9%
28.7
36.3
--36.5
25.6
43.5

.2%
.2
.5
--.5
0
0

State
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Mandamus
Civil rights

50,166
11,841
129
11,712
378
37,947

61.8%
58.6
66.7
58.6
70.9
62.6

.7%
1.2
2.3
1.2
1.9
.6

37.0%
39.6
29.5
39.7
27.2
36.3

.5%
.5
1.6
.5
0
.4

Note: Excludes transfers, remands, and statistical closures.
---Too few cases to obtain statistically reliable data.
Data source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
civil data file (1995).
*Includes 12 cases for which jurisdiction could not be determined.

Additionally, in 0.4% of the cases both the 7,804 petitions filed by Federal
inmates that were terminated during
the inmate and the government par1995, 4% were adjudicated at least
tially prevailed.
partially in favor of the inmate.
Compared to State inmates, a slightly
Approximately 5% of the petitions to
higher proportion of Federal inmates
vacate the sentence imposed were
were successful with their suits. Of
Table 7. Case processing time for prisoner petitions terminated
in U.S. district court, 1995
Jurisdiction and
type of petition
Total

Number*

10th

Days between filing and termination
Percentile of terminations
25th
50th
75th
90th

Average

57,982

8

49

161

364

681

273.9

Federal
Vacate sentence
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Mandamus
Civil rights

7,804
4,883
1,252
5
1,247
539
1,130

12
14
11
--12
22
0

53
56
48
--48
62
38

141
137
129
--129
191
165

297
284
271
--270
442
346

544
521
492
--483
784
561

228.9
220.6
207.8
--205.4
300.1
253.8

State
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Mandamus
Civil rights

50,166
11,841
129
11,712
378
37,947

8
19
1
20
4
6

49
71
13
72
22
44

166
182
349
181
72
161

376
386
973
384
206
375

702
745
1,756
735
396
689

280.9
297.4
659.2
293.4
160.2
276.9

Note: Excludes transfers, remands, and statistical closures.
*Includes 12 cases for which jurisdiction could not be determined.
---Too few cases to obtain a reliable estimate.
Data source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, civil data file (1995).

Table 8. Case processing time for prisoner petitions
terminated in U.S. district court, 1995
Jurisdiction and
mode of petition

Number*

10th

Days between filing and termination
Percentile of terminations
25th
50th
75th
90th

Average

Total

57,982

8

49

161

364

681

273.9

Federal
Dismissal
Trial
Other

7,804
5,010
23
2,764

12
8
97
21

53
46
197
68

141
128
311
162

297
281
517
321

544
525
1,257
581

228.9
215.4
311.0
251.5

State
Dismissal
Trial
Other

50,166
30,997
1,011
18,151

8
6
198
13

49
40
339
79

166
130
590
223

376
315
1,026
433

702
625
1,405
738

280.9
243.9
590.0
318.9

adjudicated in favor of the inmate;
2% of habeas corpus petitions (including the only death penalty petition),
2% of the mandamus petitions, and
0.6% of the civil rights petitions were
adjudicated in favor of the defendant,
at least in part.
In contrast to the outcome of petitions
filed by Federal inmates, of the
50,166 petitions by State inmates
terminated during 1995, about 1%
were adjudicated at least partially in
favor of the inmate. Habeas corpus
petitions by death row inmates were
the most successful  3.9% of these
petitions were adjudicated at least
partially in favor of the inmate  and,
similar to the outcome of petitions by
Federal inmates, civil rights petitions
were the least successful  1% were
adjudicated at least partially in favor
of the inmate.
While the success rate of prisoner
petitions is low overall, in those cases
adjudicated by the courts  not
dismissed  inmates were slightly
more successful. Of those cases for
which there was a judgment, 3% were
adjudicated in favor of the inmate 
including 15% of petitions by Federal
inmates challenging the sentence imposed. Additionally, in 1% of the
cases both the inmate and the government partially prevailed.

Case processing time
Prisoner petitions terminated during
1995 were processed in approximately 9 months (274 days), on average (table 7). Half of the cases,
however, took less than 5 months
(161 days). Habeas corpus petitions
generally took longer (285 days) than
other types of petitions (not shown in
a table).

Note: Excludes transfers, remands, and statistical closures.
*Includes 12 cases for which jurisdiction could not be determined.
Data source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, civil data file (1995).

Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

7

Petitions filed by State inmates took
nearly 2 months longer, on average,
than those filed by Federal inmates
 281 days for State petitions compared to 229 days for Federal petitions. The longer case processing
time for State petitions reflects, in
part, differences in the mode of disposition between Federal and State petitions. The case processing time
reported for State inmates, however,
does not include the time spent in the
State courts or in administrative proceedings. If this time were available
and taken into account, the entire
process for State inmates would take
considerably longer than for Federal
inmates.
Case processing time varied substantially by mode of disposition (table 8).
On average, prisoner petitions
disposed of at trial took longer 
approximately 2 years (727 days) 
to process than petitions that were
dismissed  240 days (on average)
 or those petitions disposed of by
other means  310 days on average
(not shown in a table).

Previous BJS reports indicated that
case processing time varies according
to the complexity of the case and
whether the inmate was represented
by counsel. Cases involving more
complex legal issues or multiple issues generally take more time to
process, on average, than cases
involving less complex issues. For
example, civil rights petitions involving
a single issue took 268 days, on average, to process whereas petitions
involving 2 issues took 312 days and
those involving 3 or more issues took
433 days (not shown in a table).5
Similar patterns were observed for
habeas corpus petitions.6
Similarly, cases where inmates were
represented by counsel took longer
(825 days, on average) than those
where the inmates represented themselves (551 days).7
5

Roger A. Hanson and Henry Daley, Challenging
the Conditions of Prisons and Jails, BJS
Discussion Paper, NCJ-151652, 1995.
6
Roger A. Hanson and Henry Daley, Federal
Habeas Corpus Review, BJS Discussion Paper,
NCJ-155504, 1995.
7
Challenging the Conditions of Prisons and
Jails, 1995.

However, even after accounting for
differences in mode of disposition,
petitions by the State inmates took
longer to process than petitions by
Federal inmates:
State petitions adjudicated at trial
took 590 days to process compared
to 311 days for Federal petitions;
State petitions that were dismissed
took 244 days to process compared
to 215 days for Federal petitions; and
State petitions disposed of by other
means took 319 days to process compared to 252 days for Federal
petitions.

8 Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

Habeas corpus petitions by death row inmates in State prisons
During 1995, 648 (or 21%) of inmates under a sentence
of death had a habeas corpus petition active  filed,
terminated, or otherwise pending  in the Federal
courts  U.S. district courts or U.S. courts of appeal
(table). Death row petitions represented about 2% of
all active habeas corpus petitions in the Federal courts
during 1995 (not shown in a table). Inmates under a
sentence of death had 212.7 habeas corpus petitions
active in the Federal courts during 1995 for every 1,000
inmates on death row (not shown in a table).

Mode of adjudication

Most (65%) of these petitions were filed by inmates in
those States with the greatest number of inmates under
a sentence of death or executed during 1995. Virginia
had the greatest proportion (66%) of death row inmates
with an active habeas corpus petition (table). During
1995 Virginia executed 5 of the 56 people on its death
row.

Petitions by death row inmates took almost 2 years (659
days), on average, to process (table 7). Ten percent of
these petitions, however, took at least 4 years and 10
months to process. (Does not include case processing
time which may have previously occurred at State court
level.)

a

Capital punishment statistics
Inmates under a
sentence of death

State
Total
Texas
California
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Missouri
Florida
Virginia
Otherc
a

Habeas corpus petitions
pending in
Federal
courtsb
648

Numberc
3,046

141
84
35
21
56
47
37
227

404
420
154
196
92
362
56
1,362

Average time- Inmates
served on
executed
death row (in during
years)
1995d
6.5
56
6.5
7.0
7.1
6.1
6.1
6.9
4.5
5.1

19
0
5
2
6
3
5
16

Includes all inmates under a sentence of death regardless of whether
they had a habeas corpus petition active in the Federal courts during
1995.
b
Includes all inmates who filed, or whose cases were terminated or still
pending, in U.S. district courts or U.S. courts of appeal during 1995.
c
Capital Punishment 1995, BJS Bulletin, NCJ-162043, 1996.
d
See, table 1 for details.

Of the 129 death-row petitions concluded during 1995,
fewer than 1% were adjudicated at trial (table 5). Twothirds of these petitions were dismissed; and about a
third were disposed of by means other than litigation.
Of those petitions that were not dismissed, about 12%
were adjudicated at least partially in favor of the inmate
 7% fully and 5% partially.

Case processing time

Appeals
During 1995, 129 habeas corpus petitions involving
State inmates under a sentence of death were filed with
the U.S. courts of appeal (not shown in a table). Unlike
other prisoner petitions, in nearly all (96%) of these
cases, legal counsel represented the inmate (table 1).
Almost two-thirds of those cases concluded were held
over for oral hearings  a greater fraction than of all
other types of petitions (table 10). However, while the
appellate courts dismissed 14% of the habeas cases,
of those cases for which there was a judgment during
1995 the district courts’ rulings were upheld in about
59% (table 11). Most (82.9%) of the dismissed cases
were terminated on procedural bases (not shown in a
table).
On average, death row petitions take longer to process
by the U.S. courts of appeal than other prisoner petitions. During 1995 habeas corpus petitions by State inmates under a sentence of death took nearly a year
(341 days), on average, to process; 10% of the cases
however, took about 2½ years to process. The longer
case processing time for these cases reflected, in part,
the larger proportion held over for oral arguments (not
shown in a table).

Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

9

Prisoner petitions in U.S. courts of appeal

Approximately 24% of those prisoner
petitions that were terminated in U.S.
district courts were appealed to the
U.S. courts of appeal (not shown in a
table). Petitions involving Federal inmates were appealed at nearly twice
the rate of those involving State inmates  37.1 appeals per 100 district
court terminations by Federal inmates
compared to 22.5 by State inmates.
Decisions involving civil rights petitions and petitions challenging the
sentence imposed were appealed at
the highest rates  46.5 and 42.9 peThe issue underlying the appeal varied by whether the inmate was in Fed- titions per 100 district court terminations, respectively.
eral or State custody. Similar to
cases filed in U.S. district courts, the
Generally, those States where inmajority (64.2%) of appeals that inmates filed petitions in U.S. district
volved State inmates originally alleged court at the highest rates had the
civil rights violations. Additionally,
highest appeals rates. During 1995
about a third originally sought habeas petitions by inmates incarcerated in
Prisoner petitions filed
corpus relief. Two-thirds of appeals
Kansas (29.6 appeals per 1,000 disinvolving Federal inmates, by contrict court terminations), Virginia
During 1996, 16,992 cases involving
trast, originally challenged the sen(25.3), and Iowa (25.1) were appealed
Federal and State prisoner petitions
tence imposed.
at the highest rates (figure 4). Civil
were appealed to the U.S. courts of
rights petitions were appealed at the
highest rates in Virginia (18.7) and
Table 9. Prisoner petitions filed in U.S. circuit courts of appeal by Federal
Iowa (21.2). Kansas, however, had
and State inmates, 1980-96
the highest appeal rate of habeas corpus petitions: 19.6 appeals per 1,000
Number of petitions appealed
district court terminations. By conFederal
State
Vacate Habeas Civil
Habeas Civil
trast, prisoner petitions by inmates
Year
Total
Total
sentence corpus rights
Other Total corpus rights
Other
incarcerated in Connecticut (3.4),
Massachusetts (4.0) and Hawaii (4.8)
1980
3,675 1,007
450
302
159
96
2,668 1,020
1,578
70
were appealed at the lowest rates.
1981
4,311 1,155
459
344
234
118
3,156 1,258
1,851
47
In the Federal system, parties involved in cases handled in U.S. district courts have the right to have a
district court decision reviewed by the
U.S. courts of appeal. If the appellate
court finds that the district court mishandled the case and that the error
deprived the party of a fair trial, the
appellate court will issue an “order of
reversal” and/or a “remand.” A “reversal” annuls the district court's judgment in its entirety. A “remand,” by
contrast, requires that the district
court review its decision considering
the appellate court's ruling(s) and/or
collect additional evidence to more
appropriately adjudicate the case.
If the appellate court, however, finds
that the district court handled the case
appropriately, it will “affirm” the district
court’s decision.

1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996

4,833
5,327
5,964
6,532
6,992
8,485
9,253
9,557
9,897
10,454
11,736
12,662
13,044
14,981
16,992

1,203
1,258
1,397
1,510
1,569
1,802
1,962
2,065
2,261
2,338
2,544
2,902
2,939
3,457
4,446

359
388
470
551
624
712
856
991
1,112
1,154
1,467
1,818
1774
2,215
3,078

455
440
462
531
485
546
524
493
488
506
432
421
430
462
451

appeal (table 9). More than half of
the cases filed on appeal originally
alleged civil rights violations. (Information describing the specific issue
raised in the appeal is unavailable.)
More than a quarter (28.7%) originally
sought habeas corpus relief; 18.1%
originally challenged the constitutionality of a Federal sentence; and, the
remainder (2%) involved other issues
such as mandamus. State prison inmates made three-fourths of the
appeals.

234
282
294
288
324
349
335
325
408
389
406
416
506
555
624

155
148
171
140
136
195
247
256
253
289
239
247
229
225
293

3,630
4,069
4,567
5,022
5,423
6,683
7,291
7,492
7,636
8,116
9,192
9,760
10,105
11,524
12,546

1,529
1,683
1,609
2,172
2,331
2,755
3,107
3,168
3,170
3,391
3,725
3,612
3642
3,927
4,423

2,038
2,297
2,796
2,772
2,982
3,817
4,070
4,224
4,413
4,655
5,396
6,044
6385
7,528
8,053

63
89
162
78
110
111
114
100
53
70
71
104
78
69
70

Data source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial
Conference of the United States, annual (table B-1A).

10 Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

Trends, 1980-1995

Appeals filed
Similar to the increase in prisoner
petitions filed in U.S. district courts,
between 1980 and 1995, the number
of prisoner petitions appealed to the
U.S. courts of appeal increased more
than fourfold  from 3,675 during
1980 to 16,992 during 1996 (table 9).

Appeals involving State inmates
(10.2% average annual increase)
increased at about the same rates as
Federal inmates (9.7% annually).
Approximately 66% of the increase in
State appeals was the result of an increase in appeals of civil rights petitions. Appeals of civil right petitions
increased an average of 11% annually
 from 1,578 during 1980 to 8,053
during 1996. Appeals of habeas
corpus petitions also substantially
increased during this period  from
1,020 during 1980 to 4,423 during
1995.

The appeal rate of Federal petitions
increased at a greater rate than that
of State petitions. Appeals of Federal
petitions increased 41%  from 26.4
appeals for every 100 district court
terminations during 1980 to 37.1

Prisoner petitions filed by State prison inmates
in U.S. courts of appeal, 1995

Approximately 76% of the increase in
Federal appeals was for petitions
challenging the sentence imposed.
These appeals increased from 450
during 1980 to 3,078 during 1996 
an average annual increase of 13%.
About 90% of this increase occurred
after the implementation of Federal
sentencing reforms in 1987.
Although fewer in number than appeals of petitions to vacate the sentence imposed, appeals of Federal
habeas corpus and civil rights petitions also increased. Appeals of
habeas corpus petitions increased
at an average annual rate of 3% 
from 302 during 1980 to 451 during
1996  and appeals of civil rights petitions increased 9% annually  from
159 during 1980 to 624 during 1996.

Appeals per 1,000
district court terminations
Fewer than 7
7 to 15
15 to 20
20 or more

Note: Alaska (9.4) and Hawaii (4.8) are not depicted.

Figure 4

Prisoner petitions filed in U.S. courts of appeal, 1980-96
Appeals per
100 U. S. district court
terminations
50

40

Filing rate
Between 1980 and 1996 the rate at
which Federal and State prisoner petitions were appealed increased 48%
 from 17.2 appellate filings for every
100 district court terminations during
1980 to 25.4 during 1996 (figure 5).

during 1995. Appeals of State petitions increased 48%  from 15.2
appeals for every 100 district court
terminations during 1980 to 22.5
during 1996.

Federal prisoners
30

20

Total
State prisoners

10

0
1980

1985

1991

1996

Figure 5

Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

11

Prisoner petitions adjudicated

Mode of disposition
During 1995, 14,333 prisoner petitions
involving Federal and State inmates
were terminated in U.S. courts of
appeal. Nearly all (93.7%) of these
cases were disposed of without oral
hearings (table 10). In 46% of the
cases, the hearings were waived.
The remainder were terminated on jurisdictional bases  the court did not
have authority to hear the case (11%)
 or procedural bases  default or
voluntary dismissal (37%).
Nearly equal proportions of appeals
involving Federal and State inmates
were disposed of without oral hearings  94.4% and 93.5%, respectively. Petitions involving State
inmates, however, were more likely
than those involving Federal
inmates to be terminated on jurisdictional or procedural bases: approximately 51.8% of petitions from State
inmates were terminated on jurisdictional or procedural bases compared
with 31.8% of Federal petitions.

Table 10. Method of disposition for prisoner petitions
terminated in U.S. courts of appeal, 1995

Jurisdiction and
type of petition
Total*

Number

Percent of dispositions of appeals
Without oral hearings
After oral Hearings No
Procedural
hearings waived
jurisdiction termination

14,333

6.3%

46.3%

10.5%

36.9%

Federal
Vacate sentence
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Civil rights
Other

3,151
1,973
426
0
426
530
222

5.6%
6.1
8.7
-8.7
2.6
6.3

62.5%
66.8
50.0
-50.0
53.6
69.8

6.3%
4.7
5.2
-5.2
12.8
7.2

25.5%
22.5
36.2
-36.2
30.9
19.8

State
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Civil rights
Other

11,177
3,957
121
3,836
7,170
50

6.5%
11.0
62.0
9.4
4.0
2.0

41.7%
28.4
25.6
28.4
49.0
60.0

11.7
6.5
.8
6.6
14.6
8.0

40.1%
54.2
11.6
55.5
32.4
30.0

---No cases of this type occurred.
*Includes 5 cases for which jurisdiction could not be determined.
Data source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
appellate data file (1995).

Disposition

Of the 14,333 prisoner petitions terminated in U.S. courts of appeal during
1995, the courts dismissed 52.4% of
Habeas corpus petitions  especially the cases, affirmed the district courts’
decision in 41.7% of the cases, and
those from inmates on death row 
were the most likely to be held for oral reversed or remanded the case to the
hearings (table 10). During 1995 ap- district court (at least in part) in 5.6%
proximately 11% of all habeas corpus of the cases (table 11).
petitions involving Federal and State
Appeals involving State inmates were
inmates were disposed of following an more likely to be dismissed than those
oral hearing, compared to 6.9% or
involving Federal inmates. During
less of other types of petitions (not
1995, approximately 57% of appeals
shown in a table).
involving State inmates were dismissed compared to 37% of those involving Federal inmates. However, of
those cases terminated on their merits, the courts of appeal found an

12 Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

error in nearly twice as many cases
involving State inmates as Federal inmates: 13.6% of the appeals involving
State inmates were either reversed or
remanded compared to 7.6% of the
appeals involving Federal inmates
(not shown in a table).
The courts of appeal most often overruled the decisions of the district
courts in habeas corpus cases. Of
those cases for which there was a
judgment during 1995, 21.1% of habeas corpus cases involving Federal
inmates and 19% of those involving
State inmates were reversed or remanded, at least in part. Conversely,
those cases addressing the constitutionality of Federal prison sentences
were the most likely (92%) to be affirmed on appeal (not shown in a
table).

Case processing time

imately 6 months (191 days), on average, to process (table 12). Half of the
cases, however, took less than 5
months (144 days). Appeals involving

Appeals involving prisoner petitions
terminated during 1995 took approx-

Table 11. Disposition of prisoner petitions
terminated in U.S. courts of appeal, 1995

Jurisdiction and
type of petition
Total*

Number

Percent of cases
Terminated on the merits
Partial
Dismissed Affirmed Reversed part
Remanded

Other

14,333

52.4%

41.7%

2.8%

2.0%

.8%

.2%

Federal
Vacate sentence
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Civil rights
Other

3,151
1,973
426
0
426
530
222

37.0%
31.5
49.8
-49.8
49.6
30.6

58.0%
63.5
44.1
-44.1
45.5
66.2

2.2%
2.2
3.3
-3.3
2.3
.5

1.7%
2.0
1.2
-1.2
1.3
.9

.9%
.7
1.6
-1.6
.6
1.8

.2%
.1
---.8
--

State
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Civil rights
Other

11,177
3,957
121
3,836
7,170
50

56.7%
62.2
14.0
63.7
53.8
46.0

37.1%
31.5
49.6
31.0
40.1
48.0

3.0%
3.7
17.4
3.3
2.5
6.0

2.1%
1.5
17.4
1.0
2.5
--

.8%
.8
-.8
.8
--

.3
.3
1.7
.2
.2
--

Average

Similar to the differences at the district court level, cases where counsel
represented the inmate took much
longer to process than those in which
the inmates represented themselves.
During 1995, cases in which counsel
represented the inmate took about
50% longer (279 days, on average)
to process than those in which the
inmate represented himself (180
days) (not shown in table).

Table 12. Case processing time for prisoner petitions
terminated in U.S. courts of appeal, 1995
Days between filing and termination
Percentiles
25th
50th
75th
90th

Number

10th

14,333

30

72

144

252

403

190.9

Federal
Vacate sentence
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Civil rights
Other

3,151
1,973
426
0
426
530
222

45
54
41
-41
34
52

104
120
89
-89
73
89

184
201
185
-185
138
142

288
303
286
-286
234
265

438
457
475
-475
374
407

221.7
237.1
219.7
-219.7
178.3
192.6

State
Habeas corpus
Death penalty
Other
Civil rights
Other

11,177
3,957
121
3,836
7,170
50

27
23
0
24
29
23

67
66
2
67
68
75

133
143
282
142
127
126

240
270
492
264
227
201

390
415
899
407
373
362

182.2
195.1
340.8
190.5
175.2
163.5

Total*

Generally, appeals involving civil
rights petitions took the least amount
of time to process, on average: 178
days for Federal petitions and 175
days for State petitions. Ten percent
of these cases took about a month to
conclude.
While those petitions that were dismissed because of jurisdictional or
procedural issues took the least
amount of time to process, these
cases were on the courts’ docket for
almost 4 months (116 days), on average (not shown in a table). Those
cases that required oral hearings took
the longest to process  more than a
year, on average.

*Includes 5 cases for which jurisdiction could not be determined.
---No cases of this type occurred.
Data source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, appellate data file (1995).

Jurisdiction and
type of petition

Federal inmates took slightly longer
than those involving State inmates 
222 days for Federal inmates compared with to 182 days for State inmates. The longer case processing
time for Federal petitions reflects, in
part, the longer case processing time
(237 days, on average) for petitions
challenging the sentence imposed.

*Includes 5 cases for which jurisdiction could not be determined.
--- No cases of this type occurred.
Data source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, civil data file (1995).

Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

13

Background information:
Types of prisoner petitions

Types of prisoner petitions

or any law of the United States and
under the authority of the United
States. While the Judiciary Act only
authorized the Federal courts to hear
habeas corpus petitions filed by Federal prisoners, subsequent legislation
extended the writ to prisoners held by
the States.12 However, State inmates
are required to exhaust all remedies
available to them at the State level
before filing a petition at the Federal
level.13

Civil rights

Federal and State inmates may file
suits in the Federal courts alleging
civil rights violations by government
officials. The foundation for these
petitions originates in the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The
14th amendment prohibits the States
from “depriv[ing] any person from life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.”18 The Civil Rights Act of
1871 provided the mechanism for persons to seek relief from constitutional
The Supreme Court has generally
held that so long as there are no pro- deprivations. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, State officials can be held liable
cedural impediments, as defined by
for the deprivation of any civil rights
statute, an inmate can raise most
constitutional or jurisdictional claims in secured by the Constitution. While
a habeas petition.14 The Court, how- this act did not address violations by
ever, has restricted the use of habeas Federal officials, in 1971 the Supreme
Court extended the Civil Rights Act to
corpus to raise constitutional claims
cover violations by Federal officials.19
 such as fourth amendment claims
of illegally seized evidence  that
Prison inmates, despite being expliHabeas corpus
could have been adjudicated either at citly denied certain rights such as
The writ of habeas corpus allows Fed- trial or on direct appellate review.15
freedom of movement and freedom
eral and State inmates to file petitions
from unreasonable searches and seiPrevious BJS reports indicated that
in the Federal courts challenging the
zures, do retain certain civil rights.20
constitutionality of their imprisonment. “ineffective assistance of counsel”
The Supreme Court has held that to
The basic principle of the habeas cor- was the most frequently cited reason
some extent, inmates continue to enfor habeas corpus petitions filed by
pus writ is that the government is acjoy the rights of religious freedom,21
countable to the courts for a person’s State inmates  25% of habeas cor22
23
pus petitions cited ineffective counsel speech, 24association, and due
imprisonment. If the government
process. And, to a greater extent,
as the basis for the petition. Other
cannot show that the imprisonment
they
enjoy the right to be free from
commonly cited reasons include erconforms with the fundamental reracial
discrimination25 and cruel andquirements of law, the person is enti- rors by the trial court (15%), due procunusual punishment.26 Recognizing
ess (14%), and self-incrimination
tled to immediate release.10
(12%).16 In concordance with Stone v. that access to the courts by inmates
Habeas corpus petitions were origiPowell, Fourth amendment claims of
18
nally authorized in the U.S. ConstituU.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
illegal search and seizure are infre19
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the
tion and were subsequently included
quent

5%
of
habeas
corpus
petiFederal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
in the Judiciary Act of 1789.11 The
tions surveyed cited illegal search and (1971).
20
Judiciary Act, as amended, provides
Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964).
seizure as the basis of the petition.15
21
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972).
that the Federal courts shall have the
22
Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974).
power to grant writs of habeas corpus 1228 U.S.C. § 2254.
23
Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor
13
in all cases where the person was re28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977).
14
24
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1978).
strained in violation of the Constitution 15Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953).
Pursuant to Federal law, Federal and
State inmates are able to file suits in
the Federal courts to: (1) challenge
the constitutionality of their imprisonment (habeas corpus); (2) redress
civil rights violations by government
officials; (3) compel government officials to perform a duty owed to the
petitioner (mandamus); and, (4) in
the case of Federal inmates, to challenge the constitutionality of the sentence imposed. (Although not
addressed in this report, Federal inmates may also file claims against
prison administrators and guards under the Federal Tort Claims Act.8
Claims filed pursuant to this act, however, are limited to those seeking to
redress damages or injuries arising
from administrative negligence.)9

8

United States v. Muniz (1963).
9
28 U.S.C. § 2674.
10
Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963).
11
U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 2; Judiciary Act of
1789, Ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73 as codified at 28
U.S.C. § 2241.

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976).
Roger A. Hanson and Henry W.K. Daley,
Federal Habeas Corpus Review BJS
Discussion Paper, NCJ-155504 (1995).
17
Ibid.
16

14 Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

25

Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968).
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981).

26

is necessary for the protection of
these rights, the Supreme Court has
ruled that inmates are not barred from
bringing lawsuits against government
officials.27 Since this decision, the
Supreme Court has ruled on many
cases defining the scope of inmates’
rights and their ability to use the
courts.

of Justice or the local Federal district
court. Inmates in facilities not certified are not required to exhaust the
institutional-level procedures before
filing a petition in Federal court.

Mandamus

The writ of mandamus is a judicial
remedy used to compel a lower court
or government officer to perform a
Previous BJS reports indicated that
duty owed to the plaintiff.31 Like haphysical security (21%), medical treatbeas corpus, mandamus is an exment (17%), and due process (13%)
traordinary remedy, based in common
are the most frequently cited issues in
law, that is only used when the plaincivil rights petitions filed by State intiff has no other adequate means to
mates. Issues such as freedom of reattain the desired relief.32 However,
ligious expression (4%), living
the courts have held that mandamus
conditions (4%), and assaults by
can only be used to compel a governguards (3%) are relatively
ment official to perform a ministerial
infrequent.28 (Data describing the
or nondiscretionary duty.33 Additionspecific issues were not available in
ally, the Federal courts do not have
the datasets used for this report.)
jurisdiction to issue writs compelling
action by State courts and officials.34
In 1980, Congress enacted the Civil
Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act Consequently, mandamus petitions
(CRIPA).29 This act sought to reduce are often dismissed: during 1995,
the number of civil rights petitions filed more than 70% of mandamus petitions filed by Federal and State inin the Federal courts by requiring inmates to exhaust State-level adminis- mates were dismissed (table 5).
trative remedies before filing their
Compared to other prisoner petitions,
petitions in the Federal courts.30 By
mandamus petitions are infrequent.
requiring inmates to exhaust the availMandamus petitions tend to be varied
able administrative remedies, Conin nature and specific to individual
gress sought to reserve the Federal
circumstances. The courts have
courts for more serious civil rights
granted mandamus for limited uses
violations or other significant constitusuch as the following: to direct lower
tional issues. Further, to ensure that
courts to hear and decide pending
civil rights petitions are handled concases in a timely manner;35 to permit
sistently across States and instituinmates to file petitions in forma
tions, the Act requires that the
pauperis or pro se;36 to compel
institution's administrative procedures
the correction of a sentence
be certified by either the Department
31

27

See, Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941) and
United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963).
28
Roger A. Hanson and Henry W. K. Daley,
Challenging the Conditions of Prisons and
Jails, BJS Discussion Paper, NCJ-151652,
1995.
29
Pub. L. No.: 96-247, 97 Stat. 349 (1980)
(codified in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.).
30
42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258 (1947).
33
Marquez-Ramos v. Reno, 69 F.3d 477 (1995).
34
See, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg
County, 411 F.2d 586 (4th Cir. 1969).
35
See, Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283 (10th
Cir. 1990) but, see, In Re Hinton, 61 F.3d 900,
1995 WL 417865 (4th Cir.).
36
In Re Smith, 600 F.2d 714 (8th Cir. 1979);
McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163 (10th Cir. 1991).
32

computation;37 to compel a State
to prosecute an inmate while the inmate is in the custody of another
jurisdiction;38 to allow inmates to vote
absentee, where permitted by law;39
and, to compel the payment of Federal witness fees to inmates.40

Constitutionality of the sentence
imposed
Federal inmates may file petitions in
the Federal courts to have a sentence
vacated, set aside, or otherwise corrected upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the
Constitution or other law of the United
States, that the sentencing court was
without jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or that the sentence was
greater than the statutory maximum
authorized by law.41 The basic principle underlying these petitions is the
same as that of habeas corpus: if the
imprisonment is unlawful, the inmate
is entitled to release (or a corrected
sentence).
While petitions challenging the sentence imposed are similar in principle
to habeas corpus petitions, in 1948,
Congress distinguished the two to address practical difficulties that had
arisen in administering the habeas
corpus jurisdiction of the Federal
courts such as: (1) to reduce the number of habeas corpus petitions filed by
Federal inmates in those Federal judicial districts where Federal correctional facilities are located; and (2) to
address practical considerations such
as evidence gathering and production
37

Savage v. Henderson, 475 F.2d 78 (5th Cir.
1973); Johnson v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1334 (11th
Cir. 1983); Holmes v. U.S. Board of Parole , 541
F.2d 1243 (7th Cir. 1976).
38
Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969).
39
O’Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974).
40
Demarest v. Manspeaker, 498 U.S. 184
(1991).
41
28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

15

of witnesses.42 Since habeas corpus
petitions pertain to the legality of the
imprisonment (including an illegal
sentence), inmates are required to
file habeas corpus petitions in the
judicial district in which they are imprisoned rather than the district in
which they were convicted and/or
sentenced.43
Prior to the enactment of 28 U.S.C. §
2255, the geographical separation of
the sentencing court and the Federal
42

Ibid.
Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188 (1948).

43

prison presented a problem for the
Federal courts: habeas corpus petitions were disproportionately concentrated in certain judicial districts. For
instance, between 1942 and 1948,
63% of all habeas corpus petitions
filed by Federal inmates were filed in
5 (Northern California, Northern Georgia, Kansas, Western Washington,
and Western Missouri) of the then 84
Federal judicial districts.44
44

William H. Speck, "Statistics on Federal
Habeas Corpus," Ohio State Law Journal,
vol. 10, 1949, pp. 337-352.

At the request of the Federal judiciary,
Congress created a new statute that
distinguished petitions challenging the
sentence imposed from those that
otherwise challenged the constitutionality of the imprisonment.45 This new
statute required inmates who challenged the sentence imposed to file
the petition in the district in which they
were originally sentenced.46 The remaining habeas corpus cases would
continue to be filed in the district in
which the inmate was confined.
45
46

28 U.S.C. § 2255.
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

Recent Federal legislation addressing prisoner petitions
Prison Litigation Reform Acta

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Actb

The Prison Litigation Reform Act, enacted in April 1996,
requires that before an inmate can file a civil rights action in Federal court the inmate must 

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, also
enacted in April 1996, addresses habeas corpus petitions that are filed in the Federal courts. Like the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, this act requires State
inmates to exhaust all available remedies at the State
level before filing a habeas corpus petition in Federal
court. Additionally, the Act establishes a statute of limitation whereby both Federal and State inmates have
1 year from the time their conviction becomes final 
after the direct appeals of their conviction and/or sentence are exhausted  to file a habeas petition in Federal court. However, if the inmate was provided
counsel for any post-conviction proceeding (such as direct appeal of the conviction), then the petition must be
filed within 6 months.

exhaust all available administrative remedies before
filing the case whether or not the facility’s grievance
procedures were certified by the Department of Justice
or the Federal court; and
show physical injury in order to receive damages for
mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody.
Additionally, the Act generally prohibits an inmate from
filing a petition in forma pauperis (as an indigent without
liability for court fees and costs) if the inmate has filed
three or more actions in Federal court that were dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failing to state a
claim on which relief can be granted. Further, inmates
filing petitions in forma pauperis are required to pay the
appropriate filing fees (and costs, where applicable)
from their existing assets or any funds available to
them through their trust fund accounts within the correctional system.
This act also provides for sanctions to be imposed on
Federal inmates who abuse the court system. The act
authorizes the Federal courts to order the revocation of
any unvested good time of Federal inmates whose petitions were dismissed because it was filed for malicious
purposes, solely to harass the other party, or because
the inmate presented false testimony or evidence.
a

Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (codified as amended
in scattered sections of 18, 28, and 42 U.S.C.).

16 Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

The act also requires successive petitions to be approved by a panel of the applicable Federal court of
appeals. Successive petitions are limited to cases that
present newly discovered evidence that would have
undermined the jury’s verdict or that involve new constitutional rights that have been retroactively applied by
the Supreme Court. Additionally, this act defined the
Federal courts' ability to adjudicate habeas corpus petitions by State inmates. The Federal courts are required to show deference to the determination of the
State courts, provided that these determinations are
neither “contrary to” nor an “unreasonable application
of” clearly established Federal law as determined by
the Supreme Court.
b

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1218 (codified as amended in
scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.).

Methodology

The primary source of data for
tables presented in this report is the
Federal Judicial Center (FJC) Integrated database. The Integrated
Database is composed of the criminal,
civil, and appellate data files maintained by the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts. These data are
archived at the National Archive of
Criminal Justice Data by the FJC
(ICPSR 8429). Data tabulations, except where otherwise noted, were
prepared from BJS staff analysis of
these databases.
Time-series data were compiled from
the annual reports of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Prior to
1992, the period reported by the Judicial Conference was July 1 through
June 30; beginning in 1992, however,
the reporting period was changed to
October 1 through September 30 to
correspond to the Federal fiscal year.
No effort was made to correct for the
missing 3 months (7/92 to 9/92) of
data.

Prisoner Petitions in the Federal Courts, 1980-96

17