Jeryme Morgan v. Minh Schott
914 F.3d 1115
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- In January 2012 Morgan was charged in a Menard Correctional Center disciplinary report for participation in a violent assault; the Adjustment Committee found him guilty and imposed one year segregation, status/access restrictions, and revocation of three months’ good-time credits (later reduced by the Board to one month).
- Morgan requested a witness (identified only as “James Lewis” and vaguely described) on the disciplinary form; the Committee did not call Lewis and the Board concluded the request failed to satisfy Illinois prison rules requiring a description of witness testimony.
- Morgan filed a pro se § 1983 suit asserting, among other claims, a due-process violation for the Committee’s failure to call his witness; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Heck v. Humphrey barred the claim.
- Morgan filed an affidavit ‘‘waiving’’ any present or future challenges to sanctions affecting the duration of his confinement (i.e., revocation of good-time credits), preserving only conditions-of-confinement claims, and relied on Peralta to argue Heck should not apply.
- The magistrate and the Seventh Circuit concluded Heck bars Morgan’s damages claim because a favorable judgment would necessarily imply invalidity of the disciplinary punishment; the court affirmed but modified dismissal to be without prejudice to allow for possible state-court relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars Morgan’s § 1983 damages claim challenging denial of a requested witness at a disciplinary hearing when the disciplinary proceeding revoked good-time credits | Morgan: He waived any challenge to duration sanctions by affidavit, preserving only conditions claims; thus Heck should not apply (relying on Peralta) | Defendants: Heck bars the claim because success would necessarily imply invalidity of the disciplinary punishment (revocation of good time) | Held: Heck applies; strategic waiver cannot avoid Heck; Haywood controls and rejects Peralta’s approach |
| Whether a damages judgment would ‘‘necessarily imply’’ invalidity of discipline or only entitle Morgan to a new hearing | Morgan: Any remedy would at most trigger a new hearing under Illinois regs, not necessarily shorten confinement | Defendants: A damages judgment finding a procedural deprivation would undermine the validity of the disciplinary sanction | Held: Judgment would imply invalidity of the punishment (backward-looking claim); therefore Heck’s favorable-termination rule applies |
| Whether Dotson and Skinner permit § 1983 relief here | Morgan: Analogizes to Dotson/Skinner where relief was forward-looking and did not necessarily imply invalidity | Defendants: Those cases are inapposite because they sought prospective relief (new hearings or access) and not retrospective damages that would undermine a sanction | Held: Dotson and Skinner are distinguishable; Morgan’s claim is retrospective and barred by Heck |
| Proper disposition when Heck bars a § 1983 claim | Morgan: Sought damages now | Defendants: Claim should be dismissed | Held: Dismissal required, but without prejudice to permit possible later § 1983 suit if the underlying disciplinary punishment is invalidated through available state remedies or habeas |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (favorable-termination rule: § 1983 damages implying invalidity of conviction/sentence barred until conviction/sentence is invalidated)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (Heck applies to prison-discipline claims where relief would necessarily imply invalidity of disciplinary sanctions)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas is the proper vehicle to challenge fact or duration of confinement)
- Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026 (7th Cir. 2016) (rejected Peralta; strategic waiver cannot avoid Heck; disciplinary judgment blocks inconsistent civil judgment)
- Peralta v. Vasquez, 467 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2006) (adopted strategic-waiver approach permitting § 1983 challenges to conditions when plaintiff waives duration claims)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (§ 1983 cognizable for forward-looking relief that does not necessarily imply invalidity of confinement)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011) (§ 1983 allowed to obtain access to postconviction DNA testing; relief was forward-looking and did not necessarily imply invalidity)