## Facts

- Cleio Hull, a Michigan state prisoner, was convicted in 1936 of a sex offense, sentenced to an indeterminate term, and later paroled.
- In 1937, Hull was convicted of another sex offense and returned to prison; the second conviction was treated as a parole violation, leading the parole board to extend Hull’s confinement on the first sentence.
- In 1940, Hull prepared habeas corpus papers for filing in federal court; prison officials refused to notarize or mail them, and guards confiscated materials he attempted to send out through his father.
- The warden relied on a prison regulation requiring that all legal documents (including habeas petitions) be submitted for institutional review and then forwarded to the parole board’s legal investigator if “favorably acted upon.”
- Hull’s habeas claim challenged the second conviction, asserting a variance between the charging date and proof at trial; his papers did not specify the extent of the variance, identify trial objections or prejudice, or include a trial transcript.

## Issues

1. Whether a state prison regulation may require prison officials to screen and approve an inmate’s habeas filings before they may be mailed to a federal court.
2. Whether a habeas challenge to a second conviction is premature when the sentence for that conviction has not begun, but the conviction has already caused parole revocation and extended confinement.
3. Whether Hull’s proposed habeas petition alleged sufficient facts to require an answer or further proceedings.

## Decision

- The Court held invalid any prison rule that abridges or impairs a prisoner’s right to apply to the federal courts for a writ of habeas corpus.
- The Court held Hull’s challenge was not premature because the second conviction had present custodial consequences through parole revocation and extended confinement.
- The Court nonetheless denied Hull’s motion for leave to file the habeas petition because the petition’s allegations were insufficient to require an answer.

## Legal Principles

- Prison officials may not censor, veto, or condition a prisoner’s access to federal habeas relief by requiring administrative preapproval of legal filings.
- Whether a habeas petition is properly drafted and what allegations are required is a judicial determination, not an administrative one.
- A habeas petition attacking a conviction may proceed when that conviction presently affects custody, even if the sentence for that conviction has not yet commenced.
- A habeas petitioner must allege specific facts indicating a federal constitutional or legal defect; conclusory or materially incomplete allegations may be rejected at the leave-to-file stage.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated prison screening rules that obstruct direct access to federal habeas corpus while also enforcing a threshold pleading requirement, denying Hull’s requested filing because his variance-based claim lacked factual detail showing a cognizable violation.


Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941)