Towery v. Miller Jr, 5:21-cv-00064

Towery, a state inmate, alleges Judge John F. Miller, Jr. signed an order granting an instructed verdict of not guilty during his criminal trial, but the trial continued and Towery was later convicted.
After Towery appealed, Judge Miller sent a letter stating the instructed-verdict entry was inadvertent; the Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, treating the entry as a clerical error corrected to show the motion was denied.
Towery filed a § 1983 suit seeking monetary damages and restoration of rights, arguing the post-signature proceedings were void (double jeopardy/jeopardy attached) and that the judge committed fraud and acted without jurisdiction.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal with prejudice, concluding Towery’s claims are barred by the Heck doctrine because his conviction has not been overturned, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question by habeas.
The District Court conducted a de novo review of objections, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report, overruled Towery’s objections, and dismissed the § 1983 action with prejudice until the conviction is set aside.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant/Court's Argument	Held
Whether Heck bars Towery’s § 1983 claim for damages based on his conviction	Towery: his conviction is void because an instructed-verdict of not guilty was signed before the trial concluded, so there is no valid conviction to overturn	Court: appellate court affirmed the conviction, treating the earlier order as clerical error; conviction remains valid for Heck purposes	Held: Heck bars the § 1983 damages claim until conviction is overturned, expunged, declared invalid, or questioned by habeas; case dismissed with prejudice until then
Whether judicial immunity is defeated by alleged judicial fraud / lack of jurisdiction	Towery: Judge Miller’s alleged fraud and post-appeal supplemental findings show action outside judicial capacity or in absence of jurisdiction, so immunity shouldn’t apply	Court: judges enjoy absolute immunity for judicial acts; Magistrate noted immunity but did not resolve the exception question because Heck independently bars the suit	Held: Court declined to decide immunity question, overruled objections, and dismissed under Heck; immunity issue left unresolved

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (a § 1983 plaintiff seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment must show the conviction has been invalidated before suing)
Bernegger v. Grimmet, [citation="562 F. App'x 219"] (5th Cir. 2014) (Heck applies even when plaintiff alleges judicial fraud rendered the conviction void)