# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 27 56

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ton y Qui nt on Newm

y , Sr.,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt ,

v.

Trey Jo hn so n, Pa ro le Offic er, Mi ss is si pp i Co un ty; Fred W rig ht , Paro le Offic er, Mi ss is si pp i Co un ty; L. Hous e, Area S.O. Co or di na to r, Mi ss is si pp i Co un ty,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - J on es bo ro

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 12 , 20 14 Fil ed : J ul y

14 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re MUR PHY, COLLOTO N, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ton y Qui nt on Newm

y ap pe al s a jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is si ng hi s 1

co m pl ai nt bro ug ht un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . W e aff irm.

The Hon or ab le J. Leo n Ho lm es , Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t J ud ge for th e Eas te rn 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.Newm y su ed Trey Jo hn so n, a pa ro le of fic er in Mi ss is si pp i Co un ty, Ark an sa s,

un de r § 19 83

. Acco rd in g to th e co m pl ai nt , Jo hn so n fal se ly rep or te d th at Newm y fai le d to re p o r t t o s e e h im as req ui red by th e te rm s of Newm y ’s pa ro le du rin g fiv e

m on th s in 20 12

. Newm

y cl ai m ed th at as a res ul t of Jo hn so n’s al le ga ti on , hi s pa ro le

was rev ok ed

, an d he w a s req ui red to se rv e an ad di ti on al th ree to fiv e m on th s of
de te nt io n. He as se rte d th at Jo hn so n’s act io ns vi ol at ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s un de r th e Due Pro ces s C la us e an d s ou gh t d am ag es

.

The di st ric t co ur t ad dr es se d whe th er Newm y ’s § 19 83 cl ai m was co gn iz ab le
in li gh t of th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Heck v. Hump hr ey , 51 2 U.S. 47 7 (1 99 4)

,

an d th is co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of Heck in Ent zi v. Red man n , 48 5 F.3 d 99 8 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 7 ). In Heck , t he Su pr em e Co ur t co ns id ered a cl ai m br ou gh t by a pr is o n i n mat e
ag a in st a st at e po li ce in ve st ig at or an d st at e pr os ecu to rs un de r § 19 83
, al le gi ng

m is co nd uc t i n t he in ve st ig at io n a nd pr os ecu ti on of th e in m at e’s cri m in al cas e. The
Co ur t h el d t ha t

in or de r to reco ve r da m ag es fo r al le ge dl y un co ns ti tu ti on al co nv ic ti on or im pr is on m en t, or fo r ot he r ha rm cau se d by act io ns who se un la wfu ln es s

wou ld ren de r a co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce in va li d, a § 19 83 pl ai nt iff m us t
pr ov e th at th e co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce ha s be en rev ers ed on di rect ap pe al

, ex pu ng ed by ex ecu ti v e o r d e r, de cl ared in va li d by a st at e tri bu na l

au th or iz ed to m ak e su ch de te rm in at io n, or cal le d in to qu es ti on by a fed eral co ur t’s i ss ua nc e o f a wri t o f ha be as co rp us , 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4.

Heck , 51 2 U.S. at 48 6- 87 (fo ot no te om it te d)

.

A se pa rat e op in io n of Ju st ic e So ut er ur ge d th at th e fav or ab le -te rm in at io n ru le

an no un ced in Heck sh ou ld no t ex te nd to in di vi du al s who are no t “ in cu st od y ” fo r ha be as pu rp os es , be cau se “ th e res ul t wou ld be to de ny an y fed eral fo ru m fo r cl ai m in g

a de pr iv at io n of fed eral rig ht s to th os e who can no t fir st ob ta in a fav or ab le st a t e

ru li ng .” I

d

. at 50 0 (So ut er, J., co nc ur rin g in th e jud gm en t). The Co ur t res po nd ed

-2

-d i r e c t l y an d di sa gr eed : “ W e th in k th e pr in ci pl e ba rri ng co ll at eral at ta ck s— a

lo ng st an di ng an d de ep ly ro ot ed feat ur e of bo th th e co m m on la w an d ou r own juri sp ru de nc e—i s no t ren de red in ap pl ic ab le by th e fo rtu it y th at a co nv ic te d cri m in al
is no lo ng er in carc erat ed .” Id

. at 49 0 n.1 0 (m ajor it y op in io n)

. In Edw ar ds v. Bal is ok

, 52 0 U.S. 64 1 (1 99 7)

, th e Co ur t un an im ou sl y e x t e nd ed Heck to ba r a § 19 83 cl ai m br ou gh t by a st at e pr is on er ch al le ng in g th e va li di ty of th e pr oc ed ur es us ed to de pr iv e hi m of g oo d- ti m e cre di ts whi le in carc erat ed

.

In Sp en cer v. Kemn a , 52 3 U.S. 1 (1 99 8)

, th e Co ur t t he n ad dr es se d a ha be as

co rp us pe ti ti on br ou gh t by a fo rm er i n mat e w h o so ug ht to in va li da te an or de r

rev ok in g hi s pa ro le

. Bec au se th e pl ai nt iff ha d co m pl et e d t he en ti re te rm of
im pr is on m en t un de rlyin g th e pa ro le re v o c a t i o n, th e Co ur t ru le d th at th e pl ai nt iff ’s

pe ti ti on was m oo t. In a co nc ur rin g op in io n , J u st ic e So ut er wro te th at al th ou gh th e ha be as pe ti ti on was m oo t, th e pl ai nt iff was free to br in g an act io n un de r § 19 83

. He

ren ewed hi s di sa gr eem en t with fo ot no te 10 in Heck

, whe re th e Co ur t had ex pl ai ne d
th at th e pr in ci pl e ba rri ng co ll at eral at ta ck s is no t ren de red in ap pl ic ab le by th e fact th at
th e pl ai nt iff is no lo ng er i nc arce rat ed

. Id . at 1 9- 21 (So ut er, J ., con cu rri ng ). J us ti ce Gin sb ur g, who ha d joi ne d th e op in io n of th e Co ur t in Heck

, al so wro te se pa rat el y

. Ci ti ng Ju st ic e Fran kf

ur te r’s ap ho ris m th at “ [w]isd om to o of te n nev er com es , an d so

o n e o ug ht no t to reject it m erel y be cau se it co m es la te ,” Hen sl ee v. Uni on Pl a n t e r s Na t’l Ban k & Tr us t Co

. , 33 5 U.S. 59 5, 60 0 (1 94 9) (Fra nk fu rte r, J., di ss en ti ng ), Ju st ic e Gi n s b u r g d e cl ared th at sh e ha d “ co m e to ag ree” wit h Ju st ic e So ut er th at

“ [i]nd iv id ua ls wit ho ut reco ur se to th e ha be as st at ut e be cau se th ey are no t ‘in cu st od y ’ (p eo pl e m erel y fin ed or who se se nt en ces ha ve be en fu ll y se rv ed

, fo r ex am pl e) fit
wit hi n § 198 3’s ‘ br oa d reach .’ ” Sp en cer , 52 3 U.S. at 21 (Gin sb ur g, J., co nc ur rin g)

.

A la nd sc ap e co ns is ti ng of Heck an d th e co ll ect io n of op in io ns in Sp en cer ha s

res ul te d in a co nf

li ct in th e ci rcu it s ab ou t th e sc op e of Heck ’s fav or ab le -te rm in at io n

ru le

. Sev eral co u r t s— co un ti ng up th e fiv e Ju st ic es who op in ed in co nc ur rin g an d
di ss en ti ng op in io ns in Sp en cer —h av e co nc lu de d th at th e Heck ba r do es no t ap pl y to

-3

-a § 19 83 pl ai n t i f f w h o can no t br in g a ha be as act io n. Se e Co he n v. Lo ng sh or e , 6 21
F.3 d 13 11
, 13 15 -1 7 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 10 ); W il so n v. Jo hn so n , 53 5 F.3 d 26 2, 26 7- 68 (4 th
Ci r. 20 08 ); Pow er

s v. Hami lt on Cn ty

. Pub

. Defe nd er Co mm’n
, 50 1 F.3 d 59 2, 59 9- 60 5 (6 th Cir . 20 07 ); No nn et te v. Sma ll , 3 16 F.3 d 87 2, 87 5- 78 (9t h C ir. 2 00 2) ; Hua ng v. Jo hn so n , 25 1 F.3 d 65
, 73 -7 5 (2 d Ci r. 20 01 ); C a r r v

. O’Lea ry , 16 7 F.3 d 11 24
, 11 25 -2 8 (7 th Ci r. 19 99 ). Fo ur ot he r ci rcu it s, in cl ud in g th is on e, ha ve ad he red to th e

co nc lu si on —s et fo rth in fo ot no te 10 of He ck

— tha t the fav or ab le -te rm in at io n ru le st il l

ap pl ie s whe n a § 19 83 pl ai nt iff is no t in c a r c e r a te d. Ent zi , 4 85 F.3 d at 10 03 ; Gil le s

v. Dav is
, 42 7 F.3 d 19 7, 20 8- 12 (3 d Ci r

. 20 05 ); Ran de ll v. Jo hn so n , 22 7 F.3 d 30 0,
30 1- 02 (5 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (p er cu ria m ); Fig ue ro a v. Rive ra , 14 7 F.3 d 77
, 80 -8 2 (1 st Ci r. 19 98 ).

Afte r Sp en cer , th e Su pr em e Co ur t sa id in Muh amma d v. Cl os e , 54 0 U.S. 74 9,
75 2 n.2 (2 00 4) (p er cu ria m ), th at it h a d “no oc cas io n to se tt le ” whe th er th e

un av ai la bi li ty of ha be as m ay di sp en se wit h th e Heck fa v o r a b le -te rm in at io n
req ui rem en t. W e co nc lu de d i n Ent zi th at th e co m

bi na ti on of co nc ur rin g an d
di ss en ti ng op in io ns in Sp en cer di d no t am ou nt to a ho ld in g th at bi nd s th is co ur t. W e
op te d in st ead to fo ll ow fo ot no te 10 in th e o pi ni on of th e Co ur t in Heck

. Ent zi , 4 85
F.3 d a t 1 00 3.

The di st ric t co ur t, sc reen in g th e c o mp l ai nt pu rs ua nt to th e Pri so n Lit ig at io n Refo rm Act, 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 A(a), d is m is se d Newm y ’s act io n fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

. Ci ti ng Heck an d Ent zi
, t h e co ur t co nc lu de d th at “ th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s an d Eig ht h Ci rcu it ’s pr eced en ts rel at in g to th e in te rs ect io n o f h ab eas rel ie f an d se ct io n 19 83 rel ie f fo recl o s e N e wm y fro m ch al le ng in g th e as se rte d de pr iv at io n of hi s

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” R. Doc

. 4, at 3. The co ur t ru le d th at if Newm y were to pr ev ai l

an d reco ve r da m ag es , th e jud gm en t wou ld ne ces sa ril y im pl y th e in va li d it y of th e
pa ro le rev oc at io n an d ex te nd ed in carc erat io n, so hi s cl ai m was no t co gn iz ab le un de r § 19 83

. Alt ho ug h Newm

y was no lo ng er in carc erat ed ba se d on th e un de rlyin g pa ro le

rev oc at io n, th e di st ric t co ur t fo ll ow e d En tz i in ru li ng th at Heck ’s ho ld in g is no t

-4

-li m it ed to pl ai nt iff s in cu st od y , an d th at th e co m bi na ti on of se pa rat e op in io ns in Sp en cer di d n ot ov erru le Heck ’s ho ld in g.

On ap pe al

, Newm

y at te m pt s ga m el y to di st in gu is h Ent zi by su gg es ti ng th at th e de ci si on is li m it ed t o ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch an in di vi du al co ul d ha ve acce ss ed
fed eral h a b e a s b ut fai le d to do so

. He rel ie s on an arg um en t ad va nc ed by t he St at e in Ent zi th at th e pl ai nt iff th ere kn ew as earl y as Mar ch 20 02 th at th e de fen da nt s were de nyin g hi m se nt en ce-r ed uc ti on cred it s, bu t di d no t se ek ha be as rel ie f be fo re he was rel eas ed fro m cu st o d y i n J an ua ry 20 04

. He su gg es ts , by co nt ras t, th at whe re ci rcu m st an ces ren de red acce ss to fed e r a l h a be as co rp us rel ie f “ a pr act ic al
im po ss ib il it y ,” Ent

zi do es no t fo recl os e a s ui t u nd er § 19 83

.

The co ur t in Ent

zi di d no t ru le ag ai ns t th e pl ai nt i f f ba se d on hi s fai lu re to

pu rs ue h a b e a s r e li ef whi le in carc erat ed

. W e sa id si m pl y , qu ot in g Heck

, th at “ ‘the

pr in ci pl e ba rri ng co ll at eral at ta ck s

. . . is no t ren de red in ap pl ic ab le by th e fo rtu it y th at

a co nv ic te d cri m in al is no lo ng er in carc erat ed .’ ” 48 5 F.3 d at 10 03 (q uo ti ng 51 2 U.S.

at 49 0 n.1 0)

. W e e x p l ai ne d th at if Ent zi ’s cl ai m were to su ccee d, it “ wou ld

ne ces sa ril y im

pl y th e in va li di ty of hi s co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce,” an d th at “ [t ] he re fo re , th e cl ai m m ay be pu rs ue d on ly in an act io n fo r ha be as co rp us rel ie f.” Id

. (em ph as is
ad de d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. The re was no m en ti on of Ent zi ’s al le ge d fai lu re
to pu rs ue ha be as co rp us rel ie f as th e rea so n wh y hi s § 19 83 act io n was ba rred

.

If th e Ent zi pa ne l ha d be en th in ki ng al on g th e li ne s su gg es te d by Newm y , th en it is ha rd ly c l e a r th at th e pl ai nt iff wou ld ha ve be en in el ig ib le to pu rs ue a § 19 83

act io n un de r Newm

y ’s “ pr act ic al i mp os si bi li ty” st an da rd

. Alt ho ug h Ent zi fir st
le arn ed ab ou t a de ni al of se nt en ce-r ed uc ti on cr e d i t s in Mar ch 20 02
, th e reco rd

su gg es te d th at he was st il l gr ie vi ng th e de ci si on th ro ug h th e pr is on ’s ad m in is tra ti ve
pr oc es s as lat e as May 20 03
, jus t eig ht m on th s befo re he w as rel eas ed

. App el la nt ’s App . 3 5- 36 , 7 5- 77
, Ent

zi v. Red man n , 4 85 F.3 d 9 98 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) (No. 0 6- 21 16 ).
The re are al so qu es ti on s un de r Nor th Dak ot a la w ab ou t whe th er st at e rem ed ie s were

-5

-av ai la bl e to Ent zi as a pr is on er who was al le ge dl y “ un la wfu ll y in cu st od y or

res tra in ed ,” N.D. Cent . Cod e § 29 -3 2.1 -0 1( 1) (g ), in whi ch cas e h is ti m e fo r fi li ng a fed eral ha be as co rp us act io n m ig ht no t ev en ha ve be gu n to ru n, m uc h le ss ha ve

ex pi re d

, b e f

o r e h e was rel eas ed fro m cu st od y

. Se e Ali v. Ten n. Bd. of Par do n &

Par ol es , 43 1 F .3d 89 6, 8 98 -9 9 & n.1 (6t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

Non e of th is was co ns id ered in th e Ent zi op in io n, beca us e it was no t rele va nt

to th e rat io na le

. As th e Thi rd Ci rcu it rece nt ly rec og ni zed , t he Eig ht h Ci rcu it —l ik e th e F i r s t , Thi rd

, an d Fi fth —h as “ in te rp ret ed Heck to im po se a un iv ers al fav or ab le

te rm in at io n req ui rem en t on al l § 19 83 pl ai nt iff s a t t ack in g th e va li di ty of th ei r

co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce.” Deemer v. Bea rd

, No. 13 -1 98 6, 20 14 W L 76 48 62
, at *3 (3 d
Ci r. Feb

. 27
, 20 14 ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (ci ti ng Ent zi ), pe ti ti on fo r cer t. fi le d

, 82 U.S.L.W

. 35 87 (U.S. Mar

. 21
, 20 14 ) (No

. 13 -1 15 3)

. W e reco gn iz e th at th is ru le co ul d pr ecl ud e

a da m ag es rem ed y fo r an in m at e who is de ta in ed fo r o n l y a s h o r t ti m e wit h li m it ed

acce ss to le ga l res ou rces , bu t th at is a co ns eq ue nc e of th e pr in ci pl e ba rri ng co ll at eral

at ta ck s th at was ap pl ie d in Heck

. Th e d i st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y fo ll owe d ci rcu it

pr eced en t i n d is m is si ng Newm y ’s cla im

.

The jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t is affi rm ed

. Newm y ’s m ot io n fo r se rv ic e of
th e ap pe al is de ni ed as m oo t.

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

Alt ho ug h I ag ree th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y ap pl ie d th is ci rcu it ’s pr eced en t in
di sm is si ng Newm

y ’s su it

, I writ e se pa rat el y to ex pr es s m y co nc ern th at ou r ap pr oa ch

“ ne ed le ss ly pl ace[ s] at ris k th e rig ht s of th os e ou ts id e th e in te rs ect io n of § 19 83 an d
th e ha be as st at ut e, in di vi du al s no t ‘in cu st od y ’ fo r ha be as pu rp os es .” Heck

, 51 2 U.S.

a t 5 0 0 ( S o u te r, J., co nc ur rin g in th e jud gm en t). In de ed

, in a “ co m bi na ti on o f

co nc ur rin g an d di ss en ti ng op in io ns ,” su pr a p. 4, th e Su pr em e Co ur t it se lf cas t do ub t

on ou r br oa d read in g of Heck

. In Sp en cer, f i v e J u s t i ces —i n co nc ur ren ce an d

-6

-di ss en t— ag reed th at “ a fo rm er pr is on er, no lo ng er ‘ in cu st od y ,’ m ay br in g a § 19 83

act io n e st ab li sh in g th e un co ns ti tu ti on al it y of a co nv ic ti on or co nf in em en t wit ho ut
be i n g bo un d to sa ti sf

y a fav or ab le -te rm in at io n req ui rem en t th at it wou ld be
im po ss i b l e a s a mat te r of la w fo r hi m to sa ti sf y .” 52 3 U.S. at 21 (So ut er, J.,

co nc ur rin g) ; id

. at 25 n.8 (St ev en s, J., di ss en ti ng ). And as th e Ten th Ci rcu it rece nt ly
rei te rat ed

, “ [i]f a pe ti ti on er is un ab le to ob ta in ha be as rel ie f— a t l e a s t whe re th is
in ab il it y is no t du e to th e pe ti ti on er’s own la ck of di li ge nc e—i t wo u l d b e un jus t to pl ace hi s cl ai m fo r rel ie f be y on d th e sc op e of § 19 83 whe re ‘ ex act ly th e sa m e cl ai m

co ul d be red res se d if br ou gh t by a fo rm er pr is on er who ha d su ccee de d in cu tt in g hi s

cu st od y sh or t th ro ug h ha be as .’ ” Co he n, 62 1 F.3 d at 13 16 –1 7 (q uo ti ng Sp en cer, 52 3
U.S. at 2 1 (S ou te r, J., co nc ur rin g) ).

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-