Legal Opinion
Wilkinson v. Dotson
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 7, 2005No. 03-287PublishedCited by 2,702 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Breyer
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
The two respondents, William Dotson and Rogerico Johnson, are currently serving lengthy terms in Ohio prisons.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Heck v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Preiser v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Porter v. NussleSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Edwards v. BalisokSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2,702 opinions
- Skinner v. SwitzerSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Wayne LaFountain v. Shirlee HarryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
- Department of Homeland Security v. ThuraissigiamSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Damous Nettles v. Randy GroundsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Boumediene v. BushSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
2,697 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.