Preiser v. Rodriguez
- Decided
- May 7, 1973
- Docket
- 71-1369
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 9,100 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled, overruled in part on other grounds, overruled on other grounds (not yet verified) · Deters v. Collins
What later courts said
- concluding that the relief sought by the prisoners “fell squarely within [the] traditional scope of habeas corpus” — Harry Allen Plyler v. Michael W. Moore, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections (1997)
- holding that § 1983 is unavailable to prisoners attacking their imprisonment because Congress passed the more specific habeas corpus statute — Ahlmeyer v. Nevada System of Higher Education (2009)
- holding that habeas corpus is the sole federal remedy for a state prisoner seeking a determination that he is entitled to a speedier release — Duncan v. Gunter (1994)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondents in this case were state prisoners who were deprived of good-conduct-time credits by the New York State Department of Correctional Services as a result of disciplinary proceedings. They then brought actions in a federal district court, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Alleging that the Department had acted unconstitutionally in depriving them of the credits, they sought injunctive relief to compel restoration of the credits, which in each case would result in their immediate release from confinement in [*477] prison. The question before us is whether state prisoners seeking such redress may obtain equitable relief under the Civil Rights Act, even though the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2254, clearly provides a specific federal remedy.
The question is of considerable practical importance. For if a remedy under the Civil Rights Act is available, a plaintiff need not first seek redress in a state forum. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 183 (1961); McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668, 671 (1963); Damico v. California, 389 U. S. 416 (1967); King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, 312 n. 4 (1968); Houghton v. Shafer, 392 U. S. 639 (1968). If, on the other hand, habeas corpus is the exclusive federal remedy in these circumstances, then a plaintiff cannot seek the intervention of a federal court until he has first sought and been denied relief in the state courts, if a state remedy is available and adequate. 28 U. S. C. §2254 (b).
Statutes cited
Cite this
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.