Document: 544 U.S. 74 WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, ET AL.v.DOTSON AL. No. 03-287. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 6, 2004. Decided March 7, 2005. Respondents Dotson and Johnson are Ohio state prisoners. After parole officials determined that was not eligible for suitable parole, they brought separate actions declaratory injunctive relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, claiming Ohio's procedures violate the Federal Constitution. In each case, District concluded a 1983 action does lie prisoner would have to seek through habeas corpus suit. The Sixth Circuit ultimately consolidated cases reversed, finding could proceed 1983. Held: State prisoners may bring challenging constitutionality procedures; need exclusively federal statutes. Pp. 78-85. (a) argues unsuccessfully respondents' claims only be in (or similar state) proceedings because cannot use challenge "the fact or duration his confinement," e. g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 475, 489, lawsuits, effect, collaterally attack their confinements' duration. That argument jumps from true premise (that all likelihood hope suits will help about earlier release) faulty conclusion is sole avenue relief). This Court's case law makes clear connection between prisoners' release confinement too tenuous here achieve legal door-closing objective. From Edwards Balisok, 520 641, this has developed an exception 1983's otherwise broad scope "within core corpus," Preiser, supra, at 487, i. e., where requests present future release. Section remains available procedural challenges success necessarily spell immediate speedier prisoner, Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, but obtain demonstrate invalidity its duration, Heck Humphrey, 512 477. Here, cognizable do fall within implicit exception. They render invalid used deny eligibility (Dotson) suitability (Johnson). See Wolff, 554-555. Neither seeks injunction ordering into community. See, 500. And as favorable judgment "necessarily imply [their] conviction[s] sentence[s]." Heck, 487. Success mean shorter stay prison; it means most new review, which speed consideration application. hearing authorities may, discretion, decline shorten prison term. Because neither prisoner's claim release, lies corpus." 489. Finally, (which, if successful, duration) yet more distant core. 648. 78-83. (b) additional arguments — (1) sentence[s]," 487 (emphasis added), sentences include particular (2) decision them principles federal/state comity by opening door court without prior exhaustion state-court remedies persuasive. 83-84. 329 F. 3d 463, affirmed remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, joined, post, p. 85. KENNEDY, dissenting 88. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT. Douglas R. Cole, Solicitor Ohio, argued cause petitioners. With him on briefs were Jim Petro, Attorney General, Stephen P. Carney, Senior Deputy Solicitor, Todd Marti, Assistant Solicitor. John Q. Lewis respondent Johnson. brief Donald B. Ayer, William K. Shirey II, David L. Shapiro. Alan E. Untereiner Dotson.* JUSTICE BREYER Court. 1 Two relief. question before us whether such Rev. Stat. 1979, Civil Rights Act 1871, must instead We conclude these 2 * two respondents, Rogerico Johnson, currently serving lengthy terms prisons. began serve life sentence 1981. board rejected first request 1995; officer, after reviewing Dotson's records year 2000, he should receive further least five years. reaching eligibility, officer guidelines adopted 1998, retroactive application new, harsher preguidelines violates Constitution's Ex Post Facto Due Process Clauses. He federal-court declaration effect well permanent grant "immediate accordance with statutory laws administrative rules place when [he] committed crimes." App. 20 (Dotson Complaint, Prospective Declaratory Injunctive Relief, ¶ 3). 3 10- 30-year term 1992. considered 1999, unsuitable making determination, applied 1998 guidelines. violated Clause. also alleges board's (by having few members denying adequate opportunity speak) Johnson's complaint conducted constitutionally proper comply constitutional due process ex post facto requirements future. 4 Both court. Wilkinson, 3:00 CV 7303 (ND Aug. 2000); Ghee, 4:00 1075 July 16, 2000). Each appealed. Appeals appeals heard both en banc. found reversed lower courts. 472 (2003). then petitioned certiorari, we granted review. II 5 held custody confinement." 489 (1973); see 554 (1974); 477, 481 (1994); 648 (1997). appropriate relief) instead. 6 points out inmates parole-eligibility parole-suitability (Johnson) believe victory lead prison. Consequently, argues, confinement; hence, action, 7 problem jump A 8 initially addressed relationship statutes supra. civil rights attacking disciplinary had led deprivation good-time credits. Id., 476. conceded language literally covers claims. (authorizing alleging against every "person" acting "under color of" law). But, noted, applies well. 28 2254(a) (permitting person being "in violation Constitution"). Moreover, observed, statute specific, writ's history traditionally "has been accepted specific instrument [unlawful] S., 486. require petitioner fully exhaust remedies, not. 490-491; Patsy Board Regents Fla., 457 496, 507 (1982). These considerations linguistic specificity, history, find 9 Defining exception, id., either prison," "shortening" confinement, 482. restoration credits demands period detention, attacks very ... physical 487-488, thus Therefore, held, pursue 10 elaborated contours "core." As officials' revocation deficient proceedings. 553. "an restoring good time improperly taken foreclosed." 555. But ("as predicate to" requested damages award) invalid. Ibid. "by way ancillary relief[,] enjoining prospective enforcement regulations." added). meant incarceration; attacked "wrong procedures, wrong result (i. [the denial of] credits)." 483 (discussing Wolff). 11 different, related, circumstance. damages, conduct who, claimed, unconstitutionally caused conviction investigating crime destroying evidence. 479. pointed hoary principle tort vehicles validity outstanding criminal judgments." "establishing basis demonstrates conviction," 481-482, "unless already invalidated," added that, "even any ..., allowed proceed." (footnote omitted). 12 returned procedure context kind previously Wolff. Balisok sought "a employed [to deprive credits] process, unconstitutional [and] prevent violations." 643. Applying vehicle inmate's insofar money "principal defect complained of," namely, deceit bias part decisionmaker, "would, established, [Balisok's] credits." 646. Hence, (and accompanying punishment imposed." Nonetheless, barring did habeas' exclusive domain. "[o]rdinarily, prayer `necessarily imply' previous loss 13 Throughout journey focused ensure invalidate directly compelling indirectly judicial determination implies unlawfulness State's custody. Thus, implied coverage simply "relates "core" relief, Cf. 92 (KENNEDY, dissenting) (arguing "relate confinement). prisoner. specifies (not invalidated) sentence. like displace suit vitiate legality confinement. cases, together, indicate barred (absent invalidation) no matter (damages equitable relief), target (state leading internal proceedings) 14 500; 554. Code Ann. 2967.03 (Lexis 2003) (describing authority's discretionary powers); Inmates Orient Correctional Inst. Adult Parole Auth., 929 2d 233, 236 (CA6 1991) (same); Tr. Oral Arg. 18 (petitioners' counsel conceding inevitably release). 15 dissent disagrees our analysis advocates different standard critical because, view, (a challenge) produce "release" (so "must wrong"), 88, 91; Heck's irrelevant concerned 91. first, pertinent sense: It invalidation (in whole part) authorizing (through trial sentencing proceeding) beside point. second, seeking unlawful. 643, 647-648. III 16 arguments. First, indicating sentence." "sentence[s]" indeed, aspect claims, invalidate. 17 context, uses word "sentence" refer substantive determinations length Muhammad Close, 540 749, 751, n. (2004) (per curiam) ("[T]he incarceration matters ordered original conviction"). interchangeably other "continuing confinement" "imprisonment." 483, 486; 645, (referring judgment" "punishment imposed"). So understood, consistent permitting decisions. 554-555; Muhammad, 754; ibid. (rejecting mistaken view categorically proceedings"). Indeed, repeatedly permitted conditions right, might "sentence." Cooper Pate, 378 546 (1964) curiam); Wilwording Swenson, 404 249, 251 (1971) curiam). interpretation Heck-barred nullification rather hence shortening Second, says favor respondents break faith remedies. Our however, placed States' important balance, weighed competing vindicate exhaustion, exhausting so long suits, state-imposed Part reason moving line draw particularly since Congress strengthened requirement precondition action. 1997e(a); Porter Nussle, 534 516, 524 (2002). 19 For reasons, Circuit's affirmed, remanded opinion. ordered. Notes: ofamici curiae urging reversal Alabama et al. Troy King, General Alabama, Kevin Newsom, Michael Billingsley, Attorneys respective States follows: Gregg D. Renkes Alaska, M. Jane Brady Delaware, Thurbert Baker Georgia, Mark J. Bennett Hawaii, Lawrence G. Wasden Idaho, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Phill Kline Kansas, Joseph Curran, Jr., Maryland, Thomas Reilly Massachusetts, Hood Mississippi, Jon Bruning Nebraska, Gerald Pappert Pennsylvania, Harry McMaster South Carolina, Larry Long Dakota, Greg Abbott Texas, Jerry W. Kilgore Virginia, Darrell V. McGraw, West Virginia. Norman Sirak Leonard Yelsky 2,974 Former Current 21 whom THOMAS joins, concurring. 22 I join my reads 477 (1994), 641 (1997), correctly. am full agreement holding "[b]ecause `the corpus'" Ante, 82. write separately note contrary broaden beyond recognition. 23 475 (1973), follow hold Congress, enacting preserved authorization allegedly unlawful 489-490. At adoption, mirrored common-law writ corpus, authorized single form relief: Feb. 5, 1867, 1, 386. shortly thereafter amended statute, courts "dispose party justice require," 761. virtually same today, 2243 ("dispose require"). interpreted broader remedial permit short example, one several consecutive sentences, challenged even though others. Peyton Rowe, 391 54, 67 (1968); Walker Wainwright, 390 335, 336-337 (1968) credits, hasten date transferred supervised habeas. 487-488. 24 thing say permissible interpret includes "quantum change level custody," Graham Broglin, 922 379, 381 (CA7 (Posner, J.), parole. quite another authorizes order terminates custody, accelerates nor reduces what here: mandating prescription composition panel, specification followed. sort immersion administration "core habeas" utterly sever roots. Bell Wolfish, 441 520, 526, (1979) (treating open prison-conditions habeas). suggests issue conditional released unless conducts proceeding, absent proceeding. 88-91 (opinion J.). who shows actually entitled pursuant confined invalidated; serves "delay provide correct violation." Hilton Braunskill, 770, 775 (1987); re Bonner, 151 242, 259, 262 (1894) (conditional resentencing). By contrast, validly sentenced made error established right otherwise. Conditional writs enable give replace valid one, consequence fail always all-purpose weapon can extort custodian forms mattress applicant's cell. 25 Petitioners counter expansion naturally prefer light burdensome prerequisites attached 2254. those prerequisites, reliance "clearly law," deference findings fact, apply court," §§ 2254(b)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1). 2243's delineation proceedings, 2241(c). while 2254 shield petitioners fellow wardens impact broadened urge create, warden responding petition protection. prisoners, whose custodians sued greater incentives shoehorn 26 focuses correctly pleaded pursued successful obtaining ante, 80-81. wishes limitations restrictions successive petitions, 2244(a), (b), (d), unavailability individual grounds proceeding 489-490 ("It wholly frustrate explicit congressional intent [state prisoners] evade exhaustion] simple expedient putting label pleadings"). 27 observations, dissenting. 29 insists dismissed remedy primary offered entitling early reason, equal logic force elementary sentence, something own premise. 30 Everyone knows succeeds obtains hearing, reduced. end up just same, perhaps longer. assured Yet following raised inconsistency treatment difficult justify. is, furthermore, tension precedents. respectful dissent. 31 Challenges Here guarantee continued until next scheduled 76-77 (majority opinion). If flawed errors dimensions, now allege, violation. raise Constitution." 2241(c)(3); Hertz & Liebman, Habeas Corpus Practice Procedure 9.1, pp. 431-437, 33 (4th ed. 2001) (noting "[t]he range corpus" (including time, prison- administratively, opposed court-administered rules)" citing numerous effect). recognition principle, adjudicated merits many California Dept. Corrections Morales, 514 499 (1995); Mickens-Thomas Vaughn, 321 374 (CA3 2003); Nulph Faatz, 451 (CA9 1994) Fender Thompson, 883 303 (CA4 1989). 32 My concerns increased, diminished, seem indeed SCALIA'S otherwise, (new hearings) unavailable 86-87. common practice granting else allows compel type SCALIA supposes unavailable. (1987) ("Federal practice, reflected decisions indicates discretion conditioning relief"). respondents', requires provides them. [a prisoner's] life," habeas, 499-500. sure, capacious enough nonetheless, applicable raising challenge. Respondents' adverse system relate Butterfield Bail, 120 1023, 1024 1997) ("[A] implicates and, therefore, continuing confinement"). Straightforward yield 34 majority's holding, go forward based characterized than majority "`core habeas.'" this, gives reasons. 35 entitle This, noted outset, proves far much. reasoning sound, remove procedure. 36 second convictions 82, misplaced irrelevant. misplaced, takes test there temptation damages), run around Preiser. 481; 643-644; 749 (recognizing Today's problem. impugn True, contentions nothing determinations. Stating gets closer resolving themselves subject direct why 643-644. 37 point cite fragment observing "`the conviction,'" 83 (quoting U.S., 1). statement, inapplicable terms, addresses problem, one. Furthermore, apart inapplicability quotation Close contrasting per se "special infraction rules," 1. here. sum, stated justify deviation demands. 38 ruling blurs formulation. apparent solely Notwithstanding Preiser's direction restricted allow 39 unsurprising, then, amicus joining opposite result, Brief Amici Curiae. circumvent Compare 2254(b)(1)(A) (providing general "remedies State" 1997e(a) (requiring bringing "prison conditions"). systems doubt variations State. special province expertise address instance, questions. Today over objection States, deprives invaluable assistance frontline 40 reasons given above, reverse.

Category: 0