Jones v. Cunningham
371 U.S. 236 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state prisoner who has been placed on parole is 'in custody' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and may therefore challenge the constitutionality of their state sentence through a federal writ of habeas corpus.
Facts:
- In 1953, Jones was convicted in Virginia under a recidivist statute and sentenced to 10 years in prison as a third-time offender.
- The third-offender sentence was based in part on a 1946 larceny conviction.
- Jones alleged that the 1946 conviction was constitutionally invalid because he had been denied his right to counsel.
- While his habeas corpus case was pending on appeal, the Virginia Parole Board released Jones on parole.
- The parole order placed Jones in the 'custody and control' of the Parole Board and directed him to live with relatives in Georgia.
- The conditions of his parole required him to obtain permission from a parole officer to leave the community, change his residence, or own a motor vehicle.
- Jones was also required to make monthly reports to his parole officer and permit the officer to visit his home or place of employment at any time.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1961, Jones filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary.
- The District Court dismissed the petition.
- Jones, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- While the appeal was pending, Jones was released on parole.
- The Superintendent, as appellee, moved to dismiss the appeal as moot because Jones was no longer in his physical custody.
- Jones opposed the motion and moved to add the members of the Virginia Parole Board as respondents.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the case as moot, holding that the Superintendent no longer had custody and that the Parole Board members lacked the requisite 'physical custody' to be proper parties.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a state prisoner who has been released on parole 'in custody' within the meaning of the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, such that a federal court has jurisdiction to hear their petition?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. A state prisoner on parole remains 'in custody' for the purposes of the federal habeas corpus statute because the conditions of parole impose significant restraints on liberty. The history of the writ of habeas corpus, both in England and the United States, shows that it is not limited strictly to physical imprisonment but extends to other significant restraints on liberty not shared by the public generally. The restrictions on Jones's freedom of movement, employment, association, and travel, combined with the constant threat of re-incarceration for any violation, constitute a form of custody sufficient to invoke federal habeas jurisdiction. While the case against the prison superintendent became moot upon parole, the petitioner should be allowed to add the members of the Parole Board, who now exercise control over him, as the proper respondents.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the definition of 'custody' for habeas corpus petitions, extending it beyond physical confinement to include parole. It established that any state-imposed restrictions that substantially restrain a person's liberty, even if not behind prison walls, are sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement for habeas review. This expansion ensures that the 'Great Writ' remains a viable tool for challenging unconstitutional convictions for individuals on parole, probation, or under other forms of supervised release. It prevents states from mooting a valid constitutional claim simply by releasing a prisoner from physical incarceration into a parole system that still exercises significant control over their life.
Unlock the full brief for Jones v. Cunningham