Otto Hillen v. Dir. of Dep't of Soc. Serv. & Hous., 455 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Otto Hillen v. Dir. of Dep't of Soc. Serv. & Hous., 455 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Delbert Kaahanui Wakinekona v. Antone Olim, Edith M. Wilhelm, John Smythe, Winton Leong and Edwin Shimoda (ca9, 1981-11-27) · Strongest negative: Hoitt v. Vitek (nhd, 1973-08-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Hoitt v. Vitek
D.N.H. · 1973 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Hillen v. Director of Department of Social Service and Housing, 455 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 989 , 93 S.Ct. 331 , 34 L.Ed.2d 256 (1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Delbert Kaahanui Wakinekona v. Antone Olim, Edith M. Wilhelm, John Smythe, Winton Leong and Edwin Shimoda (2×)
9th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Hillen v. Director of Department of Social Services, 455 F.2d 510, 511 (9th Cir. 1972); see also Fajeriak v. McGinnis, 493 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1974) (involving transfers from Alaska to other states).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tai v. Thompson
D. Haw. · 1975 · confidence medium
Hillen v. Director of Department of Social Services and Housing, supra, at 511. 10 .
discussed Cited "see" Gonzales v. State
ilclaimsct · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hillen v. Director of Social Services, 455 F.2d 510, 511 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 989 , 93 S.Ct. 331 , 34 L.Ed.2d 256 (1972).” While it thus appears that the claims of inmates of Illinois correctional centers concerning their rights with regard to institutional transfers can be heard in the Federal courts, there is a question as to whether this Court can hear such claims.
cited Cited "see" Hundley v. Sielaff
N.D. Ill. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hillen v. Director of Social Services, 455 F.2d 510, 511 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 989 , 93 S.Ct. 331 , 34 L.Ed.2d 256 (1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McDonnell v. United States Attorney General
E.D. Ill. · 1976 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Gomes v. Travisono, 510 F.2d 537 (1st Cir. 1974) (such a transfer requires minimal due process safeguards) with Hillen v. Director of Department of Social Services and Housing, 455 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. den. 409 U.S. 989 , 93 S.Ct. 331 , 34 L.Ed.2d 256 (1972) (no federal constitutional rights violated by a transfer) and Aikens v. Lash, 514 F.2d 55 (7th Cir. 1975) (entitled to a due process hearing before a disciplinary transfer).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Douglas Gomes v. Anthony P. Travisono (2×)
1st Cir. · 1974 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Hillen v. Director of Social Service and Housing, 455 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1972), (no challenge to procedures under which the prisoner was transferred); Hanvey v. Pinto, 441 F.2d 1154 (3d Cir. 1971); Rodriguez-Sandoval v. United States, 409 F.2d 529 (1st Cir. 1969) (held that the Attorney General had right to determine the federal prison in which to initially place the prisoner); Lawrence v. Willingham, 373 F.2d 731 (10th Cir. 1967) (reached only the issue of the Attorney General's power to designate the place of confinement for a prisoner under 18 U.S.C. 4082(a) contrary to the sente…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Otto HILLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE AND HOUSING, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
71-2638.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 23, 1972.
455 F.2d 510
Otto Hillen, in pro. per., George Pai, Hawaii Atty. Gen., Olden E. Leonard, Jr., Banjamin M. Matsu-bara, Deputy Attys. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendants-appellees.
Merrill, Browning, Wright.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Hillen, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint challenging the action of his jailers in transferring him from a Hawaii state prison to California’s Folsom State Prison. against his will. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action.

The district court gave two reasons in support of its dismissal: (1) Hillen had not exhausted state remedies, and (2) Hillen’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which the court could grant relief.

The lower court’s invocation of the exhaustion doctrine was misplaced. The remedy provided by the Civil Rights Acts “is supplementary to the state remedy, and the latter need not be first sought and refused before the federal one is invoked.” Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 183, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). State prisoners, as with other civil rights plaintiffs, are not required to exhaust state procedures before seeking federal relief. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 92 S.Ct. 407, 30 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971).

The jail authorities transferred Hillen pursuant to the Western Interstate Corrections Compact, 20 Haw.Rev. Stat. § 355-1. We agree with the district court’s view that such a transfer presents no issue related to federally protected constitutional rights of the prisoner. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.