Wilkinson v. Dotson
- Decided
- March 7, 2005
- Docket
- 03-287
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,909 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that Heck bars § 1983 claims that could invalidate a prisoner’s conviction or sentence, regardless of whether damages or equitable relief are sought — Cox v. Renken (2022)
- holding that where success on a claim “would not necessarily spell immediate or speedier release for the prisoner,” habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy — Watson v. Clarke (2021)
- holding that Heck doctrine applies regardless the relief sought if success in action would necessarily demonstrate invalidity of confinement or its duration — Henry James Holmes v. Robert Forman (2023)
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
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
Two state prisoners brought an action under 42 U. S. C. §1983 claiming that Ohio’s state parole procedures violate the Federal Constitution. The prisoners seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The question before us is whether they may bring such an action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, or whether they must instead seek relief exclusively under the federal habeas corpus statutes. We conclude that these actions may be brought under § 1983.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005)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.