Brian Burd v. Gail Sessler
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25646
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Burd alleged §1983 denial of access to courts by prison officials denying library access to prepare a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
- On Dec 7, 2009 Burd pled guilty to attempted burglary in Illinois; he had 30 days to move to withdraw the plea.
- For the first 29 days Burd was at facilities with no library resources; on day 30 he moved to Sheridan and was told the library was closed.
- Repeated requests for library access and for inmate assistance were denied; Burd received no response to a grievance about the failure to respond.
- He was paroled in Nov 2011; the mandatory supervised release would expire in Nov 2012; he filed §1983 suit seeking damages for denial of access; the district court dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
- This court affirms the district court’s Heck-based dismissal of Burd’s damages claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars damages for denial of access to courts in this case | Burd argues no; Dotson/ Skinner show injunctive relief may not implicate conviction | Defendants argue Heck requires favorable termination for damages | Yes, Heck bars damages here |
| Whether lack of collateral relief availability exempts the claim from Heck | Burd contends collateral relief unavailable makes Heck inapplicable | Heck applies if favorable termination would be implicated and collateral relief was possible | No; because collateral relief was available and Burd did not pursue it, Heck bars |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (damages barred when underlying judgment would be invalidated)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (damages unavailable if would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) (favorable termination requirement for §1983 damages)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (procedural challenges to prison procedures may not imply immediate release)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011) (DNA testing may be exculpatory, non-conclusive; does not necessarily affect conviction)
- Hoard v. Reddy, 175 F.3d 531 (1999) (prospective relief only; damages barred absent invalidation of conviction)
- Nance v. Vieregge, 147 F.3d 589 (1998) ( Heck bar depends on whether underlying judgment can be challenged)