Benyehudah Whitfield v. Erika Howard
852 F.3d 656
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Whitfield lost 16 months of good-conduct credits across three disciplinary proceedings (2002, 2003, 2007) and alleges the proceedings were retaliatory, delaying his release.
- While incarcerated he filed administrative grievances (denied) and multiple suits: two § 1983 suits (dismissed without prejudice under Heck), state mandamus and habeas efforts (unsuccessful or procedurally defective), and a federal habeas dismissed as moot after his 2011 release.
- Whitfield filed the present § 1983 action in July 2013 seeking relief for due process violations and First Amendment retaliation tied to his delayed release.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding Whitfield’s claims barred by Heck, Balisok, and this circuit’s Burd precedent (which requires timely collateral relief while in custody).
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit considered whether Heck/Balisok/Burd barred Whitfield given (a) his timely efforts to pursue collateral relief while in custody and (b) his claim alleging retaliation for protected activity (not a procedural challenge to hearing mechanics).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck/Balisok bars Whitfield’s § 1983 suit challenging retaliatory revocation of good-time credit after he was released | Whitfield argues he diligently pursued available collateral relief while in custody and that his claim alleges retaliation (not procedural errors), so § 1983 is permissible | Defendants argue Heck/Balisok (and Burd) bar the suit because a favorable judgment would call into question the duration of confinement and he could have pursued collateral relief earlier | Court held Heck/Balisok do not bar Whitfield’s suit given his timely, good-faith attempts at collateral relief and that his claim challenges retaliation (the mechanism of disciplinary proceedings is not essential) — reversed and remanded |
| Applicability of Burd v. Sessler (requiring timely collateral relief) | Whitfield contends Burd is distinguishable because he sought collateral relief while in custody and did not intentionally delay until habeas became unavailable | Defendants rely on Burd to say suits filed after release are barred if collateral relief could have been pursued earlier | Court held Burd does not apply here: Burd targeted plaintiffs who bypassed in-custody remedies; Whitfield pursued remedies diligently, so Burd’s bar is inapplicable |
| Whether claim is a procedural challenge to disciplinary hearings (therefore barred) or an independent retaliation claim (cognizable) | Whitfield asserts the hearings were a pretext for retaliation; he challenges motive and delayed release, not hearing procedures | Defendants assert any success would imply invalidity of disciplinary results and thus trigger the habeas-exclusive rule | Court found Whitfield’s core complaint is retaliation tied to delayed release, not a procedural challenge that necessarily invalidates the disciplinary findings, so § 1983 may proceed |
| Appellate jurisdiction over Whitfield’s appeal (timeliness of notices/motions) | Whitfield filed multiple motions and sought extension under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); contends appeal should be timely | State argued procedural hiccups deprived the court of jurisdiction | Court found district court did not abuse discretion in granting extension for excusable neglect; Whitfield’s August 4 notice was timely and appeal is properly before the circuit |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (bar on § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction/ confinement)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (extending Heck to disciplinary proceedings removing good-time credits; preserves prospective relief in some § 1983 suits)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (habeas is exclusive remedy for claims seeking speedier release)
- Burd v. Sessler, 702 F.3d 429 (7th Cir.) (held Heck bars § 1983 where plaintiff could have sought collateral relief earlier but waited until habeas was unavailable)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (§ 1983 may proceed when relief would not necessarily shorten confinement)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (permitting § 1983 for claims that need not invalidate confinement)
- Carr v. O’Leary, 167 F.3d 1124 (7th Cir.) (discussing Heck’s limits for released prisoners)
- Miller v. Indiana Dep’t of Corr., 75 F.3d 330 (7th Cir.) (applying Heck to prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Moore v. Burge, 771 F.3d 444 (7th Cir.) (dismissing under Heck is without prejudice; accrual waits until Heck bar lifts)
- Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.) (procedural guidance that Heck-based dismissals should be without prejudice)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (standards for excusable neglect in appellate extensions)