{"id":8660,"date":"2013-06-19T10:18:33","date_gmt":"2013-04-22T08:42:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-04-22T08:42:13","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8660","title":{"rendered":"CA2: Heck bar doesn’t necessarily apply if plaintiff released from custody"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Heck<\/a> bar to \u00a7 1983 relief doesn\u2019t apply if the plaintiff loses his habeas remedy because of release without a decision on the merits. Here, he pled to a lesser, but that may not bar the claim. Poventud v. City of New York<\/a>, 715 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2013):<\/p>\n

Since Jenkins and Leather, we have repeatedly affirmed that Heck’s favorable-termination requirement applies only to plaintiffs who are in custody, and that all other claimants\u2014those who have no remedy in habeas\u2014may pursue their claims under \u00a7 1983. See McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89, 101 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Over time, [Heck’s] implicit exception [to \u00a7 1983’s otherwise broad coverage] has been carefully circumscribed.”); Huang ex rel. Yu v. Johnson, 251 F.3d 65, 75 (2d Cir. 2001) (“In light of our holding in Leather, and in light of … the fact that the Spencer concurrences and dissent ‘revealed that five justices hold the view that, where federal habeas corpus is not available to address constitutional wrongs, \u00a7 1983 must be,’ we conclude that Huang’s Section 1983 claim must be allowed to proceed.”) (quoting Jenkins, 179 F.3d at 26); Green v. Montgomery, 219 F.3d 52, 60 n.3 (2d Cir. 2000) (“We have held … that Heck acts only to bar \u00a7 1983 suits when the plaintiff has a habeas corpus remedy available to him (i.e., when he is in state custody). Because it does not appear that Green is presently in state custody, his \u00a7 1983 action is not barred by Heck.” (internal citations omitted)).<\/p>\n

The facts in this case differ somewhat from the facts in the cases just cited, but not in a way that is material to the issue before us. After Poventud’s original conviction was vacated, but before that vacatur was affirmed on appeal, Poventud pled guilty to a lesser, related offense.2 This fact, however, does not alter the underlying principle that a claimant who cannot seek relief under habeas must be able to seek it under \u00a7 1983. Poventud’s guilty plea may (or may not) supply defendants with a defense that no \u00a7 1983 violation occurred. But it does not entitle them to summary judgment under Heck.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8660","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8660","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8660"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8660\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8660"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8660"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}