[ad_1]
The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies requires injured parties to seek relief from local government or administrative agencies before filing a motion in court. Exceptions include federal civil rights cases and situations where remedies are inadequate or unjustly delayed.
The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies obliges injured parties to use all available measures already established by agreement, statute, or custom to remedy a problem before seeking relief from a court of law. Under this doctrine, an aggrieved person must first seek relief from the local government authority or administrative agency that oversees the policies or statutes the person claims have been violated. After the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies available within the responsible jurisdiction or agency, he or she may file a motion in court. The intent of the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, in addition to clearing clogged judicial practices, is to recognize and uphold the sound decision-making process of courts and lower-level agencies, where staff may be better equipped to address issues occurring locally. The doctrine of exhaustion also protects the independence of government agencies under the doctrine of separation of powers.
For example, if a US complainant has a complaint about an energy-related matter, it must first go through established channels within the Department of Energy (DOE). The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is satisfied if at least 180 days pass from the date of the complaint with no response from the DOE or if the DOE renders a judgment contrary to the interests of the complainant. An injured person, after following procedures designed to address issues to the DOE, can then file a civil suit in a United States district court. He must give 30 days notice to the department, the US Attorney General and the defendant specifically detailing the alleged infringement, the relief sought, and any claims for court costs and attorneys’ fees.
Most federal courts apply the doctrine in criminal cases, requiring the felony or inmate defendant to eliminate all state remedies before filing a case in the federal system. Federal rulings upheld the doctrine in cases of state prisoners who claimed unlawful detention based on habeas corpus petitions. This is a courtesy or consideration to government systems, allowing them to correct any errors and handle problems themselves if possible. Closely related to the exhaustion doctrine, the abstention doctrine holds that federal courts should refrain from making decisions at the federal level until the state court has addressed the matter at the local level.
There are exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. For example, the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies does not apply to federal civil rights cases. In some cases, criminal defendants may sue in federal court claiming improper administrative procedure at the state level without fully satisfying the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. Additionally, courts grant exemptions in situations where remedies are inadequate, potentially harmful, or unjustly delayed.
[ad_2]