Terry Lynn Olson v. Janis Amatuzio, et al.

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), this Court held that an incarcerated individual may not challenge the validity or duration of his or her incarceration by bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Instead, before a plaintiff who is still in custody may pursue a Section 1983 claim, he or she “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.” Id. at 486–87. Heck did not, however, expressly address whether this rule applies in circumstances where, as here, habeas relief is unavailable to the Section 1983 plaintiff. In the nearly three decades since Heck was decided, the circuits have split 6–5 on the question whether the Heck “favorable-termination” requirement applies to Section 1983 claims for damages when the petitioner’s release from custody has made habeas relief unavailable. The majority of circuits hold Heck does not bar such claims. Four circuits, including the Eighth Circuit, disagree. The question presented is: Whether a petitioner who has no available remedy in habeas, through no lack of diligence on his part, is barred by Heck from pursuing a Section 1983 claim challenging the validity or duration of his incarceration.