90 F.4th 1000
9th Cir.2024Background
- Alexander Hebrard, an Oregon state inmate, was disciplined in prison, losing earned-time credits and suffering various other sanctions after being found guilty of alleged rule violations.
- Hebrard claimed due process violations during his disciplinary hearing, asserting he was not allowed to present necessary evidence or witnesses.
- He filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for damages, excluding claims related to the lost earned-time credits.
- The district court, sua sponte, raised whether his claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey because a successful due process claim would imply the invalidity of the sanction affecting his sentence duration.
- The district court dismissed Hebrard’s complaint as Heck-barred, holding he should have first sought habeas relief, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this dismissal.
- Judge Sung dissented, arguing the record did not show that restoration of credits would necessarily affect Hebrard’s sentence and the Heck bar was not obvious on the face of the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Heck v. Humphrey bar Hebrard’s § 1983 due process claim? | Claim doesn’t challenge sentence duration (not seeking restoration of credits); thus, not Heck-barred | Success would imply invalidity of disciplinary conviction and sanctions, including those affecting sentence duration; thus, Heck applies | Heck bars the claim because overturning the conviction would undermine sanctions including earned-time credits. |
| Can the district court sua sponte dismiss under Heck/PLRA? | Sua sponte dismissal is improper; defense was forfeited | PLRA allows dismissal at any time for failure to state a claim, even sua sponte | PLRA authorizes sua sponte dismissal whenever action fails to state a claim, including for Heck bar. |
| Does failure to claim restoration of lost credits avoid Heck? | Claim limited to damages for non-duration sanctions, so Heck does not apply | Sanctions were imposed collectively; overturning disciplinary finding affects all penalties including earned-time credits | Heck still applies; success on due process claim would invalidate all sanctions, including those affecting sentence duration. |
| Is the Heck bar obvious from the face of the complaint? | No, record does not show if restoring credits would necessarily affect release under Oregon law | Face of complaint shows sanctions affected earned-time credits and thus sentence duration | Heck bar is obvious from face of complaint; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 action barred if success would necessarily imply invalidity of sentence unless conviction is set aside)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (Heck applies to due process § 1983 claims where success would imply invalidity of disciplinary sanctions affecting good-time credits)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (Claims that do not necessarily imply invalidity of confinement may proceed under § 1983)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (Heck applies only where challenge implicates the validity or duration of confinement)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA requires sua sponte dismissal of in forma pauperis complaints failing to state a claim)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (PLRA mandates dismissal for failure to state a claim at any time, sua sponte)