Wilwording v. Swenson

Petitioners' complaints relating to the condition of their confinement were held by the Missouri courts not to be cognizable by means of a petition for habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's subsequent dismissal of the habeas petitions on the ground that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 had not been satisfied because other types of state remedies might be available.

Held:


 * 1. Section 2254 does not require petitioners to pursue alternative courses suggested by the Court of Appeals since their availability was conjectural and, regardless of the remedy invoked, the state courts have not granted a hearing to state prisoners on the conditions of their confinement.


 * 2. Petitioners were entitled to have their actions treated as claims for relief under the Civil Rights Acts, to which exhaustion requirements do not apply.

Certiorari granted; 439 F. 2d 1331, reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM.