Dyous v. Psychiatric Security Review Board
708 F. App'x 39
| 2d Cir. | 2018Background
- Anthony Dyous was civilly committed in Connecticut in 1985 (up to 25 years) after being found insane for hijacking a bus; the state repeatedly extended his commitment and he remains institutionalized.
- Dyous sued the Psychiatric Security Review Board seeking a declaratory judgment that his continued confinement violates his constitutional rights (due process and equal protection).
- The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding declaratory relief was not the proper mechanism to challenge the lawfulness or duration of confinement.
- Dyous appealed the dismissal to the Second Circuit, which considered whether his challenge must be brought via habeas corpus rather than a declaratory judgment action.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that Dyous’s requested relief—declaring his confinement unlawful—necessarily challenges the fact/duration of confinement and thus is proper only through a habeas petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a declaratory judgment action can be used to challenge the lawfulness/duration of Dyous’s confinement | Dyous sought a declaratory judgment that continuing confinement violates his constitutional rights and argued equity/judgment distinctions permit this route | The Board argued such a claim attacks the fact/duration of confinement and must be brought by habeas corpus | Held: Preiser and Wilkinson control; declaratory relief that would invalidate duration of confinement is barred—habeas is the exclusive remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (challenge to fact/duration of confinement must proceed via habeas corpus)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (habeas is exclusive avenue for prisoners seeking relief that would invalidate duration of confinement)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (declaratory/damages claims that do not affect duration may proceed; claims affecting duration are barred by Preiser)
- Rooney v. Secretary of the Army, 405 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Declaratory Judgment Act cannot substitute for habeas relief)
- United States v. Gutierrez, 116 F.3d 412 (9th Cir. 1997) (same principle that declaratory relief cannot replace habeas)