Henry Hill v. Rick Snyder, 878 F.3d 193

Plaintiffs are people convicted of first-degree murder for crimes committed as juveniles who originally received mandatory life-without-parole sentences and brought a §1983 class action challenging Michigan’s sentencing and parole scheme.
After Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, Michigan enacted §§769.25 and 769.25a to provide resentencing procedures and to authorize, in limited circumstances, renewed life-without-parole sentences or term-of-years sentences; §769.25a applies retroactively to those like Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in 2016 asserting (inter alia) that: Michigan still enforces §791.234(6) (Count I); categorical life-without-parole for juveniles remains unconstitutional (Count II); parole policies deny a meaningful opportunity for release (Count IV); retroactive elimination of good-time/disciplinary credits violates the Ex Post Facto Clause (Count V); and denial of rehabilitative programming violates Eighth/Fourteenth Amendments (Count VI).
The district court dismissed the SAC: Count I as moot; Counts II, IV, and VI under Heck or Younger abstention; and Count V for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Sixth Circuit: affirmed dismissal of Counts I and II; reversed dismissal of Counts IV, V, and VI; and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of Count I (challenge to §791.234(6))	§791.234(6) still effectively bars class members who await resentencing	Legislature amended statutes; §§769.25/769.25a remove juveniles from §791.234(6) so claim is moot	Dismissed as moot—the statute no longer applies to Plaintiffs
Younger abstention for Counts II, IV, VI	Federal forum appropriate despite ongoing/resumed state proceedings; SAC is a continuation, not a new case	State resentencing proceedings warrant abstention to avoid interference	Younger inapplicable here; filing amended pleading after long federal litigation does not require abstention
Applicability of Heck doctrine to claims seeking relief affecting sentences (Counts II, IV, V, VI)	Claims seek prospective or procedural relief, not necessarily speedier release	Success would necessarily affect duration of confinement, so Habeas (Heck) required	Heck bars Count II (pre-sentencing categorical challenge) but does not bar Counts IV, V, VI because success would not necessarily produce immediate or automatic shorter confinement
Ex Post Facto challenge to §769.25a(6) (Count V)	Retroactive elimination of accrued good-time/disciplinary credits disadvantages plaintiffs	Plaintiffs could not have used credits against life sentences, so no disadvantage	Count V sufficiently pleaded: plaintiffs plausibly earned credits and elimination can disadvantage them; claim survives

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (Miller rule applies retroactively)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (§1983 claim barred if success would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction/sentence)
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (§1983 cognizable for challenges to parole procedures that would not necessarily shorten confinement)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (§1983 available for procedural challenges that do not necessarily shorten sentence)
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (habeas is exclusive remedy for claims seeking immediate release)
Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (retroactive changes that lessen opportunity for early release violate Ex Post Facto Clause)
Hill v. Snyder, 821 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2016) (prior panel opinion remanding for amendment after Miller/Montgomery developments)
Wershe v. Combs, 763 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2014) (§1983 cognizable for parole-procedure claims when success would not necessarily shorten confinement)