Case Citator › Wilwording v. Swenson

Wilwording v. Swenson

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
404 U.S. 249
Decided
Confirmed treatments
4
Flagged citations read
72 of 72
Citing cases (total)
72
Treatment dates
2006–2023
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Wilwording v. Swenson's rule that prison conditions civil-rights suits need no administrative exhaustion was superseded by statute. The Supreme Court explained in Woodford v. Ngo that the Prison Litigation Reform Act made exhaustion mandatory.
More on how this was screened

Wilwording's separate holding against repetitive state-court filings before federal habeas review was not displaced by that Act. The 4 confirmed treatments are listed below; all 72 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

72 later cases cite Wilwording v. Swenson; 72 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Wilwording v. Swenson?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by statute

  • The Supreme Court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act replaced Wilwording's no-exhaustion rule for prisoner civil-rights suits with mandatory administrative exhaustion.

    Woodford v. Ngo · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Before 1980, prisoners asserting constitutional claims had no obligation to exhaust administrative remedies. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U. S. 249, 251 (1971) (per curiam). ... The PLRA strengthened this exhaustion provision in several ways. Exhaustion is no longer left to the discretion of the district court, but is mandatory.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Tenth Circuit treated Wilwording's statement about habeas review of prison conditions as dicta and declined to extend it to a federal prisoner's property claim under § 2241.

    Davis v. Fox · Tenth Circuit · filed

    Wilwording is likewise inapplicable. There, the Court noted in dicta that the state prisoners’ claims challenging their “living conditions and disciplinary measures” were “cognizable in federal habeas corpus.” ... Thus, Wilwording doesn’t support Davis’ assertion that he properly brought his conditions-of-confinement claim under § 2241.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court declined to extend Wilwording's permission to read a habeas petition as a civil-rights claim to the reverse situation, a civil-rights complaint seeking habeas relief.

    Williams v. Dixon · N.D. Cal. · filed

    Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the opposite is not true: A civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to bringing it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court declined to extend Wilwording's habeas-to-civil-rights conversion rule to a civil-rights complaint seeking habeas relief.

    Young v. Siraco · N.D. Cal. · filed

    Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the opposite is not true: A civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to bringing it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wilwording v. Swenson and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace