Scott Carpenter v. Douglas Jordan

The accrual of a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a constitutional violation for withholding exculpatory evidence as recognized by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) is governed by this Court’s decision Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, this Court held that a cause of action for an “unconstitutional conviction” “accrues” when the “outstanding judgment” has been “invalidated” by being “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” 512 U.S. at 486-487 & 489-90. Based on Heck, Courts are split on whether the statute of limitations for a § 1983 wrongful conviction claim based on a Brady and other like violations commences to run after only an “invalidation” or after both an “invalidation” and a “favorable termination.” The Sixth Circuit, in this case, provided that the statute of limitations for Jordan’s commenced after both an “invalidation” and a “favorable termination.” The Question Presented is: Does a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 wrongful conviction claim for unconstitutionally withholding exculpatory evidence “accrue” and thus the statute of limitations commence to run when (1) a conviction is “invalidated” by the post-conviction procedures set out in Heck or when (2) a conviction is “invalidated” and the plaintiff is no longer subject to criminal prosecution due to a “favorable termination?”