Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/404/249/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:36:22+00:00

Document:
Petitioners' complaints relating to the condition of their confinement were held by the Missouri courts not to be cognizable by means of a petition for habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's subsequent dismissal of the habeas petitions on the ground that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 had not been satisfied because other types of state remedies might be available.
1. Section 2254 does not require petitioners to pursue alternative courses suggested by the Court of Appeals, since their availability was conjectural and, regardless of the remedy invoked, the state courts have not granted a hearing to state prisoners on the conditions of their confinement.
2. Petitioners were entitled to have their actions treated as claims for relief under the Civil Rights Acts, to which exhaustion requirements do not apply.
Certiorari granted; 439 F.2d 1331, reversed and remanded.
of prohibition, or mandamus or a declaratory judgment in the state courts," or perhaps other relief under the State Administrative Procedure Act. Id. at 1336.
"The 'exhaustion of state remedies' rule should not be stretched to the absurdity of requiring the exhaustion of . . . separate remedies when, at the outset, a petitioner cannot intelligently select the proper way, and in conclusion he may find only that none of the [alternatives] is appropriate or effective. "
"These actions were instituted in 1966 by handwritten petitions employing varying titles [including 'habeas corpus']. Each plaintiff asked for the appointment of counsel and permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Those requests were granted. Appointed counsel then filed amended complaints which have been treated by all concerned as petitions for injunctive relief under the civil rights statutes, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4). We are satisfied as to jurisdiction. We are also satisfied, as were the district judges, that the cases are appropriately to be regarded as class actions within the scope and reach of Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P."
"Almost all of the complaints presented by [the earlier actions] had been raised in the habeas corpus petitions originally filed in the State courts underlying this Petition."
"As this writer did not participate as counsel in the Civil Rights Act cases, and in view of the generalized nature of the claims for relief in the petitions herein, it is not known whether all of the issues intended to be presented by those petitions were presented in the Civil Rights Act cases."
Reply Brief 7. Accordingly, we must conclude that it is not clear from the record whether the issues raised in the earlier cases are the same as those presented here. The effect, if any, of those actions upon the instant cases must therefore be determined on remand.
or argument. The Court assumes without citation of authority that further resort to state remedies would be futile; the District Judge, far more familiar than we with the local situation, thought otherwise. The Court does not rest its reversal on this ground, however, for it blandly treats petitioners' habeas corpus petitions as complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an approach that petitioners' experienced counsel has studiously and appropriately avoided. Petitioners had previously filed complaints expressly under § 1983, which were denied after full hearing. It is conceded in the petition for certiorari that almost all of the claims involved in those actions underlie the instant habeas corpus proceeding; but petitioners' counsel argues that the doctrine of res judicata has no application in habeas corpus. The Court does not explain why this argument is not lost if the habeas corpus petitions are treated as complaints under § 1983.
I had previously thought that summary reversal was limited to cases where the error was manifest. Here, however, the Court has challenged the conclusion of the Court of Appeals largely on the basis of surmise, and has gone on to reverse on a theory that the Court of Appeals was not asked to consider and presumably could not have considered.

References: § 2254
 § 1983
 § 1343
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983