Olivier v. City of Brandon · ¶19

The Court held it did not. The Court took as settled that Heck could not have used § 1983 to “challenge[ ] the fact or duration of his confinement and seek[ ] immediate or speedier release” from custody. Id., at 481 (citing Preiser v. Rodri guez, 411 U. S. 475, 488–490 (1973)). A claim of that sort, the Court noted, “must be brought in habeas corpus proceedings.” Heck, 512 U. S., at 481. And so too, the Court held, Heck could not use § 1983 to seek damages deriving from a conviction, unless it had already been overturned. See id., at 486–487. To be sure, Heck could not get damages by way of a habeas action. See id., at 481. But in suing for them under § 1983, Heck was in truth mounting a “collateral attack” on the validity of his conviction, and thus intruding on the habeas statute's domain. Id., at 485. Such a suit could lead to “parallel litigation” respecting “the issues of probable…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.