Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1994

Heck v. Humphrey

512 U.S. 477 | 114 S. Ct. 2364 | 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 | 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4824

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Heck bars a § 1983 damages claim that would necessarily undermine an existing conviction or sentence until the plaintiff first obtains a favorable invalidation of that criminal judgment.

Background

Roy Heck was convicted in Indiana of voluntary manslaughter for killing his wife and was serving a 15-year prison sentence. While his direct appeal was pending, Heck filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two county prosecutors and a state police investigator. He alleged that they conducted an unlawful investigation, knowingly destroyed exculpatory evidence, and used an unlawful voice-identification procedure at trial. He sought compensatory and punitive damages, not release from custody or other injunctive relief.

The Federal District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because its allegations directly implicated the legality of Heck's confinement. During the ensuing appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Heck's conviction, and his federal habeas petitions were ultimately unsuccessful. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that a civil-rights action challenging the legality of a conviction must be treated as a habeas action and therefore required exhaustion of state remedies. The Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a state prisoner may recover damages under § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment while the conviction or sentence remains outstanding.

Holding

No. A § 1983 damages claim is not cognizable if success would necessarily imply the invalidity of an outstanding conviction or sentence, unless that conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.

Reasoning

The Court began with the overlap between § 1983 and federal habeas corpus. Section 1983 generally does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state remedies, whereas habeas corpus requires a state prisoner to pursue available state remedies first. Under Preiser v. Rodriguez, habeas is the exclusive federal remedy when a prisoner challenges the fact or duration of custody and seeks immediate or speedier release. But Heck sought damages, relief that habeas could not fully provide, so Preiser did not directly resolve his case.

The Court rejected the idea that the question should be answered by adding an exhaustion requirement to § 1983. The proper question is whether the particular damages claim exists under § 1983 at all. A prisoner cannot avoid habeas limitations simply by requesting money rather than release when proving the damages claim would establish that the conviction or sentence itself was unlawful.

Common-law malicious prosecution supplied the closest analogy because it permits recovery for confinement imposed through legal process. A malicious-prosecution plaintiff must show that the prior criminal proceeding terminated favorably. That rule prevents parallel litigation over guilt and probable cause, avoids inconsistent civil and criminal judgments, and prevents a civil tort suit from becoming a collateral attack on an existing criminal conviction.

Applying that principle, the Court held that a plaintiff seeking damages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for conduct whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, must first show favorable termination. The conviction or sentence must have been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called into question through a federal writ of habeas corpus.

The district court must ask whether a judgment for the § 1983 plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of an outstanding criminal judgment. If it would, the court must dismiss the complaint unless the plaintiff proves that the judgment has already been invalidated. If success would not necessarily demonstrate invalidity, the § 1983 action may proceed, subject to other possible defenses or bars.

Heck's allegations were treated by both lower courts as attacks on the legality of his conviction, and Heck did not timely contest that characterization before the Supreme Court. Because his conviction had not been invalidated, his damages action was properly dismissed. The Court therefore affirmed the Seventh Circuit.

Issue #2

Whether Heck's claim should be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, and when the limitations period begins for a barred § 1983 claim.

Holding

The rule is one of noncognizability, not exhaustion; the cause of action does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated.

Reasoning

The Seventh Circuit had framed the problem as an exhaustion requirement: a prisoner challenging the legality of a conviction through a civil-rights suit had to exhaust state remedies. The Supreme Court rejected that formulation because § 1983 contains no general exhaustion requirement beyond those Congress enacted. The Court instead held that a claim implying the invalidity of an outstanding conviction has not yet arisen as a cognizable § 1983 claim.

This approach also resolves the limitations problem. A damages claim based on an unconstitutional conviction or sentence accrues only when the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question through habeas relief. Thus, the limitations period does not run while the prisoner pursues the necessary challenge to the criminal judgment.

Concurrences

Justice Thomas

Reasoning

Justice Thomas agreed with the Court but wrote separately to emphasize that the Court's prior decisions had expanded both habeas corpus and § 1983 beyond their originally limited scopes, creating the conflict between the statutes in prisoner litigation. Because the Court had helped create that tension, he thought it appropriate for the Court to craft a principled limitation that reconciled the two remedies.

He concluded that the majority's rule was principled because it respected the federalism concerns reflected in habeas corpus's express exhaustion requirement and was consistent with common-law principles existing when § 1983 was enacted. He therefore joined the Court's opinion in full.

Justice Souter

Reasoning

Justice Souter concurred in the judgment, joined by Justices Blackmun, Stevens, and O'Connor. He agreed that Heck could not pursue § 1983 damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or confinement unless he had first obtained invalidation of that conviction or confinement. But he disagreed with the majority's suggestion that the favorable-termination rule follows directly from importing the common-law tort of malicious prosecution into § 1983.

In his view, common-law tort principles are only a starting point for § 1983 analysis, not the decisive source of statutory elements. Malicious prosecution requires not only favorable termination but also lack of probable cause and malice. Importing only favorable termination, while omitting those other elements, showed why the common-law tort could not itself dictate the scope of the statutory remedy. Other possible analogies, such as abuse of process, further weakened the claim that malicious prosecution was uniquely controlling.

Justice Souter instead grounded the rule in statutory reconciliation. Section 1983 is a broad remedial statute, but habeas is the more specific statute governing state prisoners who attack the legality of their custody and requiring them to give state courts the first opportunity to address those claims. Allowing damages for unlawful conviction or confinement before invalidation would undermine habeas's exhaustion policy, because a damages judgment would practically pressure the State to release the prisoner.

The malicious-prosecution favorable-termination concept was useful, in Justice Souter's view, as a practical mechanism for implementing that statutory balance. Requiring prior invalidation ensures that prisoners follow the habeas route before pursuing § 1983 damages for unlawful confinement, while also postponing accrual and avoiding limitations-period problems.

Justice Souter cautioned that the rule should be understood in light of the habeas statute and should not necessarily foreclose § 1983 claims by people who cannot seek habeas because they are no longer in custody. Extending the rule to such plaintiffs could deny any federal forum to people who discover constitutional violations only after their sentences end, a result he regarded as difficult to reconcile with § 1983's purpose of providing a federal remedy for state violations of federal rights.