439 F.Supp. 290, 294-95 (D.Kan.1976) (concluding that the Feres doctrine did not bar prisoner’s claim under the FTCA because at the time of the tortious acts alleged in the complaint he had been given a bad conduct discharge revoking all military privileges, he was receiving no pay or other form of compensation from the military, and was not performing any military tasks). 4. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) The plaintiffs’ action is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which provide .1999) (finding that § 1997e(e) does not apply to Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims); Lewis v. Sheahan, 35 F.Supp.2d 633, 637 n. 3 (N.D.Ill.1999) (stating that § 1997e(e) does not bar plaintiffs right of access claims); Self-Allah v. Annucci 1998 WL 912008, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Oct.14, 1998) (<HOLDING>); Friedland v. Fauver, 6 F.Supp.2d 292
holding that  1997ee is not applicable to plaintiffs first amendment claims because the statutory section applies to situations where the underlying claim involves an injury to a prisoners physical wellbeing holding that title 42 usc  1997ee requires proof of a physical injury before a prisoner can recover for emotional or mental distress holding that verbal abuse is not actionable under section 1983 and also recognizing a de minimus standard for 8th amendment excessive force claims holding that  1997ee did not bar plaintiffs first amendment claims holding that the court of claims did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs first amendment claim of improper removal holding that title 42 usc  1997ee requires proof of a physical injury before a prisoner can recover for emotional or mental distress and that verbal abuse is not actionable under section 1983