Heck v. Humphrey: What Should State Prisoners Use When Seeking Damages From State Officials, Section 1983 or Federal Habeas Corpus?

• NCJ Number: 166930
• Journal: New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement Volume: 22 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1996) Pages: 109-138
• Author(s): E J Savoy
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 30 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This paper analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey (1994), which examined "whether a State prisoner may challenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983."

Abstract

Under Section 1983, a citizen of the United States may bring a civil action in Federal court against State officials alleged to have violated the citizen's rights under the U.S. Constitution. In "Heck" the plaintiff named as defendants State officials who were alleged to have conducted an illegal search of his property, unlawfully destroyed exculpatory evidence, and directed an illegal voice identification procedure. The complaint sought, among other remedies, compensatory and punitive damages; it did not seek injunctive relief nor did it seek Heck's release from custody. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Heck's petition for certiorari to resolve the issue of "whether a State prisoner may challenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983." The Court held that a claim for damages by a State prisoner under section 1983 is an action to challenge the legality of the conviction; therefore, the Court ruled that Heck's claim could not be brought under section 1983. The Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Heck's section 1983 complaint. Instead of using the analysis in its "Preiser" decision, the Court based its decision on the common law of torts and the cause of action of malicious prosecution. The Court could have reached the same result by relying on the central holding in "Preiser," which indicated that a prisoner could not bring a section 1983 suit if he was challenging the very fact or length of his confinement, and abolishing its dicta, which stated that a section 1983 claim for damages could be brought by a State prisoner. Also, the Court seems to require a State prisoner to exhaust State remedies in State court before seeking relief in Federal court under section 1983. Prior Supreme Court decisions have indicated that there is no exhaustion requirement for section 1983. 229 footnotes