Legal Opinion · Dissent

Albers v. Ralston

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided December 3, 1981No. Nos. 81-1296 to 81-1298Published

1DissentArnold, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. The Court holds that habeas corpus relief is inappropriate because the petitioners do not allege a constitutional violation and “have no constitutional interest in the classification system sufficient to invoke due process protection.” Ante, at p. 815. Reading the petitioners’ complaint as an attack on their conditions *818of confinement, the Court relies on Willis v. Ciccone, 506 F.2d 1011, 1019 (8th Cir. 1974), for the proposition that a prisoner petition which seeks habeas corpus relief from prison conditions must allege “a substantial infringement of a constitutional…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. United States v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  3. Leslie D. Willis v. Dr. P. J. CicconeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1974
  4. United States of America Ex Rel. Frank Esola, 53517 v. Ronald M. Groomes, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
  5. United States v. Williams, Ronald Alfred, Ronald A. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API