Heck v. Humphrey

What Happened

Roy Heck was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing his wife in Indiana. While serving his sentence, he filed a § 1983 suit against the prosecutor and a state police investigator, alleging they had engaged in an “unlawful, unreasonable, and arbitrary investigation” leading to his arrest and that the prosecutor had “knowingly destroyed” exculpatory evidence. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.

Heck’s claims, if proven, would have undermined the very foundation of his conviction. If the investigation was unconstitutional and the prosecutor destroyed evidence, the conviction couldn’t stand. But Heck didn’t challenge his conviction through the proper channel — a habeas corpus petition — which would have required him to exhaust state remedies first. Instead, he tried to use § 1983 to collaterally attack his conviction through a damages suit.

The District Court dismissed the complaint, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Heck’s claims were essentially challenges to his conviction that should be brought through habeas corpus.

What the Court Decided

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, held that § 1983 damages claims that would “necessarily imply the invalidity” of an existing conviction or sentence are barred unless the conviction has already been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” 512 U.S. at 486–487.

The Court drew an analogy to the common-law tort of malicious prosecution, which required a “favorable termination” of the criminal proceeding as an element of the claim. Just as a malicious prosecution plaintiff can’t sue while still convicted, a § 1983 plaintiff can’t recover damages when success would undermine an existing conviction.

The key question under Heck is whether “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” 512 U.S. at 487. If yes, the claim doesn’t accrue until the conviction is invalidated. If no — if the § 1983 claim and the conviction can coexist — the claim may proceed.

The Court gave an example: an excessive force claim by a convicted person is not necessarily barred. An officer might have used excessive force during an arrest that still resulted in a valid conviction supported by other evidence. The force claim doesn’t “necessarily imply” the conviction was invalid.

What It Means in Practice

Heck creates what practitioners call the “Heck bar” — a threshold requirement that screens out § 1983 claims that would effectively undo criminal convictions. It’s the intersection of § 1983 and habeas corpus, two remedies that serve different purposes: § 1983 provides damages for constitutional violations, while habeas challenges the validity of custody.

For civil rights plaintiffs, Heck means you can’t use a § 1983 damages suit as a backdoor attack on your conviction. If your claim — taken to its logical conclusion — would show that you shouldn’t have been convicted, you must first get the conviction overturned. Only then does your § 1983 claim accrue.

This has practical consequences that can be devastating:

• Statute of limitations. Your § 1983 claim doesn’t accrue until the conviction is invalidated. This protects you from the clock running while you’re still convicted, but it also means years can pass before you can file.
• Claims that die with the conviction. If the conviction is never overturned — because you plead guilty, serve your time, and never appeal — some § 1983 claims may be permanently barred.
• Excessive force claims usually survive. Most excessive force claims during arrest don’t imply the conviction is invalid. You can sue the officer for breaking your arm during the arrest even if you were validly convicted of the underlying offense.

How You Can Use It

Understanding Heck helps you frame claims that survive the bar:

• Separate the force from the conviction. If you were convicted but also subjected to excessive force, argue that the force claim doesn’t “necessarily imply” the conviction was invalid. The officer could have used excessive force and you could have committed the crime. These aren’t mutually exclusive.
• Key quote: “A claim for damages bearing [a favorable termination] relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” 512 U.S. at 487.
• Check whether your conviction still stands. If your conviction has been reversed, expunged, or declared invalid, Heck is no longer a barrier. File your § 1983 claim.
• Template: “Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor would not ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ of [his/her] conviction. The excessive force used by Defendant during the arrest is independent of — and fully compatible with — the validity of the underlying conviction.”

How It Can Be Used Against You

Heck is a powerful defense tool:

• “Your claim attacks your conviction.” If your § 1983 claim alleges that evidence was planted, that the arrest lacked probable cause, or that the prosecution was malicious, the defense will argue that success on these claims would “necessarily imply” the invalidity of your conviction. If you’re still convicted, the claim is barred.
• Guilty pleas as a trap. If you pled guilty, it’s much harder to challenge the arrest or prosecution through § 1983. The plea is treated as an admission of the underlying facts, and any § 1983 claim that contradicts those facts runs into Heck.
• Broad application. Courts have applied Heck to bar a wide range of claims — unlawful arrest, fabrication of evidence, Brady violations, malicious prosecution — whenever success on the claim would undermine the conviction.

How to counter: Frame your claim narrowly. Focus on the specific constitutional violation — the use of force, the conditions of detention, the seizure of property — and explain why a judgment in your favor is fully compatible with the validity of the conviction. If your conviction has been overturned, say so prominently. And if your claim involves conduct that occurred independently of the criminal prosecution (like jail conditions or strip searches), argue that Heck simply doesn’t apply.