The Supreme Court/The Supreme Court.iso/pc/ascii/1993/93_6188/93_6188.zs

Text File | 1994-06-24 | 3.5 KB | 65 lines

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

HECK v. HUMPHREY et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the seventh circuit
No. 93-6188.   Argued April 18, 1994-Decided June 24, 1994

While petitioner Heck's direct appeal from an Indiana conviction was
 pending, he filed this suit under 42 U. S. C. 1983, seeking dam-
 ages-but not injunctive relief or release from custody-on the
 claim that respondents, acting under color of state law, had en-
 gaged in unlawful acts that had led to his arrest and conviction.
 After the Federal District Court dismissed this action without
 prejudice, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld Heck's conviction
 and sentence, and his two petitions for federal habeas relief were
 rejected.  The Court of Appeals then affirmed the dismissal of the
 1983 complaint and approved the District Court's reasoning: If
 the plaintiff in a federal civil rights action is challenging the
 legality of his conviction, so that his victory would require his
 release even if he had not sought that relief, the suit must be
 classified as a habeas corpus action and dismissed if the plaintiff
 has failed to exhaust his state remedies.
Held:  In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
 conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
 whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,
 a 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has
 been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
 declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
 determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance
 of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U. S. C. 2254.  A claim for damag-
 es bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has
 not been so invalidated is not cognizable under 1983.  Preiser v.
 Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 494, and Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S.
 539, 554, distinguished.  The foregoing conclusion follows upon
 recognition that the common law of torts provides the appropriate
 starting point for the 1983 inquiry, see Carey v. Piphus, 435
 U. S. 247, 257-258; that the tort of malicious prosecution, which
 provides the closest analogy to claims of the type considered here,
 requires the allegation and proof of termination of the prior crimi-
 nal proceeding in favor of the accused, see, e.g., Carpenter v.
 Nutter, 59 P. 301; and that this Court has long been concerned
 that judgments be final and consistent and has been disinclined to
 expand opportunities for collateral attack on criminal convictions,
 see, e.g., Parke v. Raley, 506 U. S. ___, ___.  Although the issue in
 cases such as this is not, therefore, the exhaustion of state reme-
 dies, the dismissal of Heck's 1983 action was correct because both
 courts below found that his damages claims challenged the legality
 of his conviction.  Pp. 3-14.
997 F. 2d 355, affirmed.
 Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehn-
quist, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.
Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion.  Souter, J., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment, in which Blackmun, Stevens, and
O'Connor, JJ., joined.