CA7 (en banc): Heck bar overcome by pardon, which started SOL

Plaintiff sued for malicious prosecution after he was imprisoned for a 1977 murder, paroled, and finally pardoned by the Governor. The pardon overcame the Heck bar, and the claim became ripe with the pardon. The court takes the occasion to clean up some dicta in other cases. Savory v. Cannon, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 315 (7th Cir. Jan. 7, 2020) (en banc):

Heck controls the outcome where a section 1983 claim implies the invalidity of the conviction or the sentence, regardless of the availability of habeas relief. Claims that relate only to conditions of confinement and that do not implicate the validity of the conviction or sentence are not subject to the Heck bar. We disavow the language in any case that suggests that release from custody and the unavailability of habeas relief means that section 1983 must be available as a remedy. That includes the cases on which the district court, in good faith, reasonably relied. McDonough confirms that habeas exclusivity is just one part of the rationale for Heck’s holding. Concerns about comity, finality, conflicting judgments, and “the hoary principle that civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments” all underpin Heck’s favorable termination rule. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. The Supreme Court may revisit the need for the favorable termination rule in cases where habeas relief is unavailable, but it has not yet done so.

Savory’s claims, which necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, accrued when he was pardoned by the governor of Illinois. His section 1983 action, filed within two years of the pardon, was therefore timely filed. We reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.