NCJ Number
14754
Journal
Capital University Law Review Volume: 3 Issue: 1 Dated: (1974) Pages: 197-216
Date Published
1974
Length
20 pages
Annotation
DISCUSSION OF THE SUPREME COURT'S REASONING IN ITS 1973 DECISION OF PREISER V. RODRIGUEZ, WHICH MADE HABEAS CORPUS THE SOLE REMEDY FOR A PRISONER CHALLENGING THE FACT OR DURATION OF HIS CONFINEMENT.
Abstract
IN PREISER V. RODRIGUEZ, THE MAJORITY OPINION WRITTEN BY MR. JUSTICE STEWART TRACED THE DEVELOPMENT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO THE PRESENT. IT IS CURRENTLY A REMEDY ABLE TO BRING DISCHARGE FROM ANY CONFINEMENT CONTRARY TO LAW, EVEN IF THAT CONFINEMENT IS IMPOSED PURSUANT TO A CONVICTION MADE BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION. WHAT THE MAJORITY OPINION ADDED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS A NEW, MORE NARROW DEFINITION OF HABEAS CORPUS. THE MAJORITY NARROWED THE CORE OF HABEAS CORPUS DOWN TO AN ATTACK UPON THE LENGTH OF CONFINEMENT OR FACT OF CONFINEMENT. THE CORE GOES TO THE VERY DURATION OF THEIR PRISONERS PHYSICAL CONFINEMENT ITSELF. THE DECISION HELD ACTIONS BROUGHT UNDER FEDERAL CLAIM MUST BE BROUGHT VIA A FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS ACTION WHETHER THE CONFINEMENT IS ATTRIBUTED TO JUDICIAL ACTION OR TO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. ONLY THOSE SUITS INVOLVING THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CAN BE BROUGHT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES. THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S DECISION IS DEPENDENT UPON THE WORKABILITY OF THE DURATION-CONDITION DISTINCTION. IF STATE PRISONER SUITS CAN BE CATEGORIZED FUNCTIONALLY AS EITHER A SUIT GOING TO THE DURATION OF CONFINEMENT OR THE CONDITION OF CONFINEMENT, THE COURT WILL HAVE PRODUCED A PRACTICABLE TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A STATE PRISONER MAY PROCEED UNDER HABEAS CORPUS OR THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WHEN ASSERTING FEDERAL RIGHTS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)