Olivier v. City of Brandon · ¶22

The City's main argument to the contrary (echoing the decisions below) rests on one sentence of our Heck opinion. That supposedly dispositive line states: “[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed” (unless the conviction has already been invalidated). Id., at 487; see supra, at 562–563. Of course, Olivier does not “seek[ ] damages” in his § 1983 suit, but the City points out that several post-Heck decisions dropped the sentence's prefatory phrase while repeating the rest. See, e. g., Dotson, 544 U. S., at 81–82; Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U. S. 521, 533–534 (2011). And in the City's view, that modified inquiry suggests that the Heck bar should apply to Olivier's suit. That is because,…

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