§Why CasetextPricing

SALAHI et al v. BUSH et al

RESPONSE re MOTION for Order to Show Cause

65 Cited authorities

  1. Wilkinson v. Dotson

    544 U.S. 74 (2005)   Cited 6,134 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, but must instead seek federal habeas corpus relief

  2. Bell v. Wolfish

    441 U.S. 520 (1979)   Cited 17,391 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "prohibition against receipt of hardback books unless mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or bookstores does not violate the First Amendment rights of MCC inmates"

  3. Turner v. Safley

    482 U.S. 78 (1987)   Cited 10,149 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding a regulation unconstitutional after noting that the prison "pointed to nothing in the record suggesting" the existence of a rational connection between the regulation and the asserted government interest and that "[c]ommon sense likewise suggests that there is no [such] connection"

  4. Skinner v. Switzer

    562 U.S. 521 (2011)   Cited 2,885 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state prisoner's "postconviction claim for DNA testing is properly pursued in a § 1983 action"

  5. Preiser v. Rodriguez

    411 U.S. 475 (1973)   Cited 18,060 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because the prisoners sought the restoration of good time credits—and consequently speedier release—their claims implicated the duration of their confinement such that their sole remedy was by writ of habeas corpus

  6. Muhammad v. Close

    540 U.S. 749 (2004)   Cited 2,822 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prisoner “raised no claim on which habeas relief could have been granted on any recognized theory” where the administrative determinations he challenged neither raised an implication about the validity of the underlying conviction nor necessarily affected the duration of time to be served

  7. Thornburgh v. Abbott

    490 U.S. 401 (1989)   Cited 3,190 times
    Holding that the factors set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, apply to the regulation of incoming mail

  8. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

    542 U.S. 55 (2004)   Cited 1,463 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency can be compelled to act if time period is specified by law

  9. Boumediene v. Bush

    553 U.S. 723 (2008)   Cited 967 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that enemy combatants are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus

  10. Procunier v. Martinez

    416 U.S. 396 (1974)   Cited 3,039 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prisoner interest grounded in the First Amendment "is plainly a 'liberty' interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment even though qualified of necessity by the circumstance of imprisonment"

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 486,409 times   688 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Section 2241 - Power to grant writ

    28 U.S.C. § 2241   Cited 80,356 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to determine whether detention is "in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States"

  13. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 20,431 times   184 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"