Civil rights and Heck v. Humphrey

The most often used vehicle for bringing a civil rights lawsuit is Section 1983, Title 42, of the United States Code.

Section 1983 creates a cause of action for damages in favor of an individual who has been deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution by someone acting under color of state law. Essentially, Section 1983 creates tort liability.

Every citizen of the United States and every person within its jurisdiction may utilize Section 1983 to secure redress for Constitutional violations. Persons who have been convicted of crimes, however, must take into account the rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in Heck v. Humphrey.

In Heck , a prisoner filed suit under Section 1983 while his direct appeal from a conviction was pending. He sought damages on the claim that the defendants, acting under color of state law, had engaged in unlawful acts that had led to his arrest and conviction.

The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could not challenge his conviction or confinement via a Section 1983 claim if the plaintiff’s success would imply the invalidity of his outstanding criminal judgment.

As a result, before the Section 1983 claim could be pursued, the plaintiff must first prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

On the other hand, when the plaintiff’s 1983 suit, if successful, would not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action may proceed.

To explain how the Heck doctrine works, assume a person is convicted of burglary and sentenced to prison. The person then files a Section 1983 suit contending that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to make the arrest.

A finding of probable cause would have been made during the course of the criminal proceeding. The Section 1983 claim, then, would necessarily imply the invalidity of the criminal conviction. Under Heck , the 1983 claim may not proceed until such time as the plaintiff has received a favorable termination of his criminal judgment.

Now, using the same hypothetical, assume the plaintiff files a 1983 suit claiming that the arresting officer used excessive force during the arrest. Here, the Section 1983 claim does not imply the invalidity of the conviction for burglary. The 1983 claim may proceed.

There are a multitude of cases interpreting and applying the Heck doctrine, but the foregoing analysis is a good beginning point.

Entering a pretrial diversion program does not terminate the criminal action in favor of the criminal defendant for purposes of Heck v. Humphrey. See Morris v. Mekdessie , United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, April 26, 2019.

Panter Law Firm, PLLC, 7736 Old Canton Road, Suite B, Madison MS, 39110.

601-607-3156

www.craigpanterlaw.com

Craig Painter

The post The impact of Heck v. Humphrey on civil rights lawsuits by S. Craig Panter appeared first on Panter Law Firm, PLLC.