616 F. App'x 650
5th Cir.2015Background
- Harold Joe Black, formerly imprisoned for cocaine distribution, was released in 2013 after unsuccessful direct appeals and multiple state and federal postconviction/habeas efforts.
- After release, Black filed a pro se suit framed under §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985, but the operative claims were § 1983 allegations that various officials and appointed counsel violated his constitutional rights related to arrest, trial, and collateral-review proceedings.
- A magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice under Heck v. Humphrey (favorable-termination rule); the magistrate alternatively found some defendants immune or not state actors.
- The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissed the suit with prejudice, and imposed sanctions on Black.
- On appeal, Black argued Heck should not bar his § 1983 claims because, as a released prisoner, he can no longer obtain habeas relief to satisfy Heck’s favorable-termination requirement.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Black’s Heck argument was foreclosed by circuit precedent (Randell) and declined to reach the immunity/state-actor issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck's favorable-termination rule bars Black's § 1983 claims | Heck cannot bar because Black is no longer in custody and cannot obtain habeas relief to satisfy the favorable-termination requirement | Heck applies to former prisoners; circuit precedent requires dismissal when success would imply invalidity of conviction | Dismissal affirmed; Heck bars the § 1983 claims and Randell controls |
| Whether Spencer v. Kemna eliminated Heck for released prisoners | Spencer (and concurrences/dissent) shows Heck doesn’t apply to released prisoners | Spencer did not overrule Heck; Fifth Circuit precedent remains binding | Spencer dicta insufficient; no intervening change to overrule Randell |
| Whether Muhammad v. Close changes the law in this circuit | Muhammad suggests unsettledness but not a controlling change | Muhammad does not effect a change that permits this panel to revisit Randell | Muhammad noted but insufficient to overturn Randell; Heck still applies |
| Whether to reach alternative defenses (immunity/state-actor) | Black asserted those rulings were erroneous | District court found some defendants immune or not state actors; alternative grounds for dismissal | Court did not reach these issues because Heck dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (establishes favorable-termination rule for § 1983 claims attacking convictions)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (parole-revocation habeas mootness; dicta and concurrence address released prisoners and Heck)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (noted unsettledness of Heck’s application to released prisoners)
- Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2000) (Fifth Circuit rule that Heck’s favorable-termination rule extends to former prisoners)