Skip to main content
This work is funded by people like you. Donate ↗
Doctrine

Favorable Termination

For certain § 1983 claims, your underlying criminal case must have ended in your favor before you can sue.

What It Is

The favorable termination rule means that for certain § 1983 claims, you cannot sue until the related criminal case ends in your favor. This rule comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), sometimes called the Heck doctrine.

The logic: if winning your § 1983 case would necessarily imply that your criminal conviction was invalid, you must first get that conviction overturned before suing.

How It Works

Ask yourself: Would success in my § 1983 case contradict my criminal conviction or sentence?

For example, if you were convicted of resisting arrest and then sued the officer for excessive force during that arrest, some courts will ask whether finding excessive force would necessarily undermine the resisting conviction. If so, Heck bars the claim until the conviction is overturned.

Fourth Amendment Claims After Thompson

The Supreme Court clarified in Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022) that a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim requires favorable termination, but the termination need not affirmatively indicate innocence. A dismissal of charges is sufficient — you don’t need an acquittal.

What Counts as Favorable Termination?

Claims Affected

Practical Tips

Key Takeaway

If your § 1983 claim would undermine a criminal conviction, you must get that conviction overturned first. Otherwise, the claim is barred under Heck.

Have corrections or want to suggest a change? Let us know ↗