1994 United States Supreme Court case
| Heck v. Humphrey | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued April 19, 1994 Decided June 24, 1994 | |
| Full case name | Roy Heck v. James Humphrey et al. |
| Citations | 512 U.S. 477 (more)114 S. Ct. 2364; 129 L. Ed. 2d 383; 1972 |
| Holding | |
| A defendant cannot claim damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment without showing that the conviction or sentence has been overturned in some way. The defendant must also exhaust state court remedies before bringing a §1983 action. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist,Kennedy,Thomas,Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concurrence | Souter, joined by Blackmun,Stevens,O'Connor |
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court held that "in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a §1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus".
References
- "Heck v. Humphrey: What Should State Prisoners Use When Seeking Damages From State Officials, Section 1983 or Federal Habeas Corpus? | Office of Justice Programs". www.ojp.gov. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
External links
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |