Olivier v. City of Brandon · ¶21
The same is true of Olivier's suit. Olivier is not challenging the “validity of [his] conviction or sentence,” for the purpose either of securing (or speeding) release or of obtaining monetary damages. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167–168 (2022). Instead, Olivier is seeking (in Wooley's words) “wholly prospective” relief—“only to be free from prosecutions for future violations” of the city ordinance. 430 U. S., at 711. And that request, as Balisok and Dotson recognized, falls outside habeas's core—and likewise outside Heck's concerns. See 520 U. S., at 648; 544 U. S., at 82. Olivier's suit does not, as habeas suits do, “collateral[ly] attack” the old conviction. Heck, 512 U. S., at 485. It thus cannot give rise, as Heck feared, to “parallel litigation” respecting his prior conduct. Id., at 484. Nor does it risk “conficting” judgments over how that conduct was prosecuted or punished.…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.