forwarded a letter to the GCC’s Warden. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires an inmate to exhaust his administrative remedies before he may proceed with a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in federal court. Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 418 (6th Cir.1997). With the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) on April 26, 1996, Congress expressly mandated exhaustion before bringing suit in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (1997); Garrett v. Hawk, 127 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir.1997). Prior to the enactment of the PLRA, however, a district court had discretion to require a prisoner to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing his claim in court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (1994); Rocky v. Vittorie, 813 F.2d 734 (5th Cir.1987); See Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 423 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs conditional complaint was, in
holding that person in 42 usc  1983 does not include states holding that the plra did not apply to preact work recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment holding that 42 usc  1997e does not apply to claims pending at the time of passage of the plra holding that claims under 42 usc  1983 are not personal injury tort claims