Brown, Ernest v. Plaut, William M.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• portending that “[h]abeas corpus might conceivably be available to bring challenges to [] prison conditions,” e.g., visitation, mail, shower or library privileges
• Supreme Court “has never deviated from PreisePs clear line between challenges to the fact or length of custody and challenges to the conditions of confinement”
• “One of the Court’s principal concerns in Heck was to limit collateral attacks on final judgments; but a proceeding that is incapable of giving rise to collateral estoppel, like that at issue in this case, hardly needs to be insulated from collateral attack.” (citation omitted)
• “Habeas corpus might . . . be 24 available to bring challenges to . . . prison conditions . . . , but requiring the use of habeas corpus in such cases would extend Preiser far beyond the ‘core’ of the writ that Preiser set out to protect.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).