In the

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

No. 21-2697 

JAMES COURTNEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

KIMBERLY BUTLER, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

____________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Illinois. 

No. 3:16-cv-01062-NJR — Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Chief Judge. 

____________________ 

ARGUED OCTOBER 26, 2022 — DECIDED MAY 3, 2023 

____________________ 

Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. 

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents a new question on the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), which forecloses civil litigation 

that would call into question the validity of a state criminal 

conviction or sentence that has not been set aside. Heck extends to civil litigation that would call into question the validity of a parole revocation, at least when the revocation is 

based on the parolee’s wrongdoing. Knowlin v. Thompson, 207 
2 No. 21-2697 

F.3d 907, 909 (7th Cir. 2000). The new question here is whether 

and how Heck applies when release on parole is denied based 

not on the parolee’s actions but on state officials’ alleged failures to do their jobs. 

Plaintiff James Courtney was sentenced to three years in 

state prison followed by one year of “mandatory supervised 

release,” the current name for parole in Illinois. But in a practice known as “violating at the door,” Courtney’s mandatory 

supervised release was revoked before he ever left prison. The 

stated reason was not that he had acted wrongly in some way 

but that he had no arrangements for a place to live that state 

officials deemed suitable. Courtney spent the one year of his 

“mandatory supervised release” in prison.

Courtney then brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against current and former administrators of the Illinois Department of Corrections and the Menard Correctional Center. 

He alleges that defendants failed to investigate living arrangements that he proposed and ignored his grievances. He also 

alleges that his mandatory supervised release was revoked 

without evidence that he violated any terms of release and 

without adequate procedural protections, all in violation of 

his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed all of 

Courtney’s claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. We affirm 

in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings on Courtney’s claims that state officials failed to do their 

jobs so that he could be paroled.

I. Factual and Procedural History

We review dismissal of Courtney’s complaint de novo, accepting as true the facts alleged in his complaint and giving 

him the benefit of all reasonable inferences from those 
No. 21-2697 3

allegations. Knowlin, 207 F.3d at 907. Because Courtney appeals from dismissal of his complaint, he may rely on documents outside his complaint to “elaborate on his factual allegations so long as the new elaborations are consistent with the 

pleadings.” Peterson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 986 F.3d 

746, 752 n.2 (7th Cir. 2021), quoting Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 

675 F.3d 743, 745 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012). 

A. Plaintiff’s Delayed Release

Courtney was sentenced to three years in prison and one 

year of mandatory supervised release for having violated an 

earlier term of parole by failing to register as a sex offender. 

Courtney was scheduled to be released on October 4, 2013, at 

which point his term of mandatory supervised release was to 

have begun. 

One condition for Courtney’s release was that he identify 

a host site, approved by the Illinois Department of Corrections, where he would reside during his term of release. See 

20 Ill. Admin. Code § 1610.110(a) (an order for release on parole is not effective and the inmate shall not be released until 

arrangements have been made for a “proper and approved 

residence,” and the prison warden may hold the inmate until 

arrangements are approved). 

The Illinois Department of Corrections Administrative Directive 04.50.110 provides “written instructions to staff regarding [their] responsibilities” in the host site approval process. IDOC Administrative Directive 04.50.110 § II.A (effective 

Nov. 1, 2007). Approximately twelve months before an offender’s projected mandatory supervised release date, a representative from the department’s Field Service office “shall” 

obtain from the inmate his release plan—i.e., where he plans 
4 No. 21-2697 

to live upon release. § II.F.1(a). If the inmate does not have a 

release plan, the Field Service representative “shall” help him 

develop one. Id. The Field Service representative “shall” ensure that the release plan is entered into the Offender Tracking System and a release packet is prepared. § II.F.1(b) & (c). 

And the prison warden “shall ensure” that the Field Service 

representative completes these steps. § II.F.1. 

The process for approving an inmate’s release plan varies 

slightly depending upon the inmate’s parole category. For socalled “S” Type or Special Parole offenders like Courtney, the 

Field Service representative submits the release packet to the 

appropriate parole supervisor, who assigns the case to a parole agent. IDOC Administrative Directive 04.50.110 

§ II.H.3(a)(2). The parole agent is responsible for meeting prospective hosts and conducting site investigations of the inmate’s proposed residence. § II.H.3(c)(2). Either the parole 

agent or her supervisor enters the results of the investigation, 

approving or rejecting the proposed residence, into the Offender Tracking System. § II.H.3(c)(3) & (c)(4). The Field Service representative receives daily notifications regarding host 

site denials via the Offender Tracking System. § II.H.3(a)(3). If 

a proposed host site is denied, the Field Service representative 

“shall” develop alternative release plans. Id. Meanwhile, the 

parole agent “shall ... [c]ontinue to develop, investigate, and 

process alternative community host plans.” § II.H.3(c)(5). If no 

alternative plan is developed, both the Field Service representative and the parole agent “shall” contact the Placement 

Resource Unit for assistance. § II.H.3(a)(3) & (c)(5).

On August 29, 2012, more than a year before his scheduled 

release, Courtney submitted two potential host sites to the 

Field Service office for investigation. The first was the home 
No. 21-2697 5

of a friend on Rhodes Street in Centralia, Illinois. The second 

was a halfway house in East St. Louis that accepts sex offenders. In March or April 2013, Courtney sent a letter to the Field 

Service office with another potential host site, a property 

owned by the same friend, this one on Maple Street in Centralia. At some unknown time during his incarceration, Courtney sent another letter, this time saying that his release plan 

was to live with the same friend at a house on Locust Street, 

or, in the alternative, at the halfway house in East St. Louis. 

Of all the host sites proposed by Courtney, only the Rhodes 

Street address was submitted by the Field Service office for 

investigation, and it was rejected by the parole office in August 2013. No one at the Department of Corrections ever submitted Courtney for placement at the halfway house or referred him to the Placement Resource Unit for assistance.

On October 4, 2013—the day Courtney was scheduled to 

be released—a correctional officer came to his cell and told 

him he had been “violated” and would not be leaving the 

prison that day. The Department of Corrections determined 

that Courtney had not identified a suitable host site, so a warrant—signed by defendant Godinez—was issued for his arrest. Courtney’s parole violation report, dated October 6, 

2013, recommended that he remain at the Menard prison until 

appropriate housing was found. The report also directed that 

Courtney be “referred to the Placement Resource Unit so adequate housing may be located in as expeditious a manner as 

possible.”

More than a month later, at a revocation hearing on November 14, 2013, the Prisoner Review Board issued an order 

formally revoking Courtney’s mandatory supervised release. 

The Board’s order said that Courtney would be released 
6 No. 21-2697 

“upon the approval of a viable host site as determined by 

IDOC.” No suitable host site was ever approved, however, so 

Courtney completed his entire one-year term of mandatory 

supervised release in prison.

Starting on October 4, 2013 and continuing through the 

following months, Courtney filed numerous grievances with 

prison officials insisting that he had submitted suitable host 

sites to the Field Service office and that his continued imprisonment was unlawful. Several of his grievances went unanswered. One was denied on the false premise that the Field 

Service office had submitted Courtney for placement at the 

halfway house. On October 18, 2013, Courtney filed a grievance complaining that he was being kept in prison illegally 

and that no one had investigated the host sites he had proposed. In a report denying Courtney’s grievance, the grievance officer asserted that the Field Service office had submitted Courtney for possible placement at the halfway house on 

November 8, 2013. As a designated witness for the Department of Corrections confirmed in her later deposition, that assertion was simply false. Courtney unsuccessfully appealed 

his grievance to defendant Harrington and then to defendant 

Godinez. 

In the meantime, other Menard inmates whose release 

dates were after Courtney’s and who were not sex offenders 

(and who therefore had fewer restrictions on where they 

could live) were released to that same halfway house while 

Courtney remained at Menard. After completing his one-year 

term of mandatory supervised release in prison, Courtney 

was released on October 3, 2014.
No. 21-2697 7

B. District Court Proceedings 

After his release, Courtney sued several Department of 

Corrections officials for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In 

his operative complaint, Courtney alleges that defendants 

wrongfully prolonged his detention in violation of the Eighth 

and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, he claims that defendants ignored his communications regarding potential 

host sites and took insufficient action to ensure he was released on his scheduled date. Courtney also alleges that defendants’ refusal to release him on his scheduled release date 

because they anticipated he would violate conditions of his 

supervised release—despite the fact that no such violation 

had yet occurred—was unconstitutional. Courtney’s complaint also accuses defendants of depriving him of his liberty 

without due process in two main ways. First, he accuses defendants of failing to carry out their duties when they ignored 

multiple communications and grievances he sent regarding 

potential host sites. Second, he asserts that his mandatory supervised release was revoked without adequate procedural 

protections, including notice and the opportunity to be heard.

In their answer, defendants asserted several affirmative 

defenses, including qualified immunity, absolute immunity, 

sovereign immunity, and statute of limitations. Three months 

later, defendants sought leave to amend their answer to assert 

as an additional affirmative defense that Courtney’s claims 

were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Under 

Heck, a plaintiff alleging that his state conviction or sentence 

was unconstitutional may sue for damages under § 1983 only 

if his conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or called into question by a federal court’s writ of 

habeas corpus. Id. at 486–87. If the plaintiff’s conviction or 
8 No. 21-2697 

sentence has not been set aside, then the district court must 

dismiss his complaint if finding in his favor would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Id.

at 487. 

Courtney opposed the defendants’ motion to amend, arguing that Heck did not apply. His theory was and is that his 

claim for wrongful detention past his scheduled release date 

seeks to vindicate his underlying sentence, not attack it. The 

magistrate judge assigned to the case agreed and denied defendants’ motion to amend as futile. The defendants filed a 

motion for reconsideration and on the same day moved for 

summary judgment.

The case was then transferred to the assigned district 

judge, who concluded that defendants should have been permitted to amend their answer and that Heck barred all of 

Courtney’s claims. The court first rejected Courtney’s argument that he was not challenging his underlying sentence, 

noting that supervised release was part of Courtney’s sentence. The district court then considered whether judgment in 

Courtney’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his 

sentence. It would, the court reasoned, because finding that 

Courtney was wrongfully detained would mean the decision 

to revoke his mandatory supervised release was invalid. Concluding that Heck applied, the court dismissed Courtney’s 

claims without prejudice.1

1 In Heck, the Supreme Court wrote that where the doctrine applies, 

the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the conviction or sentence has been 

reversed or set aside. 512 U.S. at 486–87 (“plaintiff must prove....”). The 

procedural status of Heck has divided the circuits. Is the favorable-termination requirement jurisdictional, is it an affirmative defense that must be 

pled in an answer on pain of waiver, and may a case dismissed without 
No. 21-2697 9

II. Analysis

In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff alleging 

that his conviction or sentence was unconstitutional does not 

state a claim under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence 

has been set aside. 512 U.S. at 487. Heck’s favorable-termination requirement is “rooted in pragmatic concerns with avoiding parallel criminal and civil litigation over the same subject 

matter and the related possibility of conflicting civil and criminal judgments.” McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149, 2157 

(2019). Consequently, if a judgment in plaintiff’s favor would 

not imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, then 

Heck does not apply: the plaintiff’s claim is cognizable under 

§ 1983 even if his conviction or sentence has not been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 

“Heck uses the word ‘sentence’ to refer ... to substantive 

determinations as to the length of confinement.” Wilkinson v. 

Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 83 (2005). Heck’s favorable-termination requirement thus extends to claims that a plaintiff’s good-time 

credit, parole, or supervised release was improperly revoked. 

Such claims would, if successful, necessarily challenge the duration of a plaintiff’s confinement. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 

prejudice on Heck grounds count as a “strike” under the Prison Litigation 

Reform Act? See Garrett v. Murphy, 17 F.4th 419, 425–28 (3d Cir. 2021) (surveying circuits and holding Heck requirement is non-jurisdictional element of claim and that dismissal on Heck grounds may count as a strike 

for failure to state a claim). The Seventh Circuit has been in the non-jurisdictional affirmative-defense camp, with the strike question addressed in 

non-precedential orders. See Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 837–38 (7th Cir. 

2011) (not jurisdictional); Carr v. O’Leary, 167 F.3d 1124, 1126 (7th Cir. 1999) 

(affirmative defense). In light of the circuit split, district courts may find it 

prudent as a matter of case management to determine earlier rather than 

later whether a defendant will raise the issue.
10 No. 21-2697 

641, 646 (1997) (loss of prison good-time credits); Knowlin, 207 

F.3d at 909 (parole revocation); Antonelli v. Foster, 104 F.3d 

899, 901 (7th Cir. 1997) (Heck applies to suits “premised ... on 

the invalidity of confinement pursuant to some legal process” 

including parole revocation).

Courtney’s claims do not challenge his original conviction 

or sentence. Defendants contend instead that Heck bars his 

claims because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply that the Prisoner Review Board’s November 14, 2013 order revoking his mandatory supervised release was invalid, 

and that order has not been set aside. To determine whether 

Heck bars Courtney’s claims, we evaluate each in turn.

A. Whether Release Was Revoked Without Due Process of Law 

Courtney alleges that the process leading to revocation of 

his supervised release was procedurally deficient, depriving 

him of his liberty without due process of law. Specifically, 

Courtney claims he was not given notice or the opportunity 

to be heard before he was denied release and that he was not 

given notice or a chance to be heard at the Prisoner Review 

Board hearing. He also complains that he was denied the opportunity to procure witnesses or to obtain counsel before the 

Board’s hearing and that the Board’s hearing was not held 

“within a constitutionally permissible time” after his release 

was denied.

This claim is barred by Heck. The alleged procedural defects would, if proven, imply that the Board’s revocation of 

Courtney’s supervised release was improper. See Edwards, 

520 U.S. at 646 (applying Heck to bar plaintiff’s claim that 

prison disciplinary hearing in which plaintiff’s good-time 

credits were revoked was procedurally deficient). Before 
No. 21-2697 11

Courtney can bring such a claim, he must show that the order 

revoking his supervised release has been set aside in some 

fashion, and that has not happened. 

B. Whether Release Was Revoked Without Evidence of a Violation

Next, we address Courtney’s claim that defendants anticipatorily revoked his mandatory supervised release without 

evidence that he had actually violated any of its terms, in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

Courtney claims that because he was “violated at the door,” 

he never lived at a host site that violated his supervised release conditions, so the revocation of his supervised release 

was unconstitutional.

This claim is also barred by Heck. A judgment in Courtney’s favor would necessarily imply that the revocation of his 

supervised release was unjustified and invalid. See Wilkinson, 

544 U.S. at 81–82 (Heck bars § 1983 claims “absent prior invalidation” if success “would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”).

C. Whether Defendants Intentionally or Recklessly Failed to 

Effect Courtney’s Release 

Last, we address Courtney’s primary claim, taking at face 

value his factual allegations: that at least some defendants deliberately or recklessly failed to effect his release on or after 

October 4, 2013. Courtney alleges that, prior to his scheduled 

release date, defendants failed to investigate three of the host 

sites he identified, including the halfway house in East St. 

Louis. Then, after he was deemed in violation of his conditions on October 4, 2013, Courtney alleges, defendants ignored his communications and grievances complaining that 
12 No. 21-2697 

he was being wrongfully detained and imploring defendants 

to release him to the host sites he had previously identified. 

Courtney alleges that defendants’ actions resulted in longer 

imprisonment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendments. 

The inquiry under Heck is whether Courtney’s claims 

would necessarily invalidate the Board’s order. We analyze 

separately his allegations regarding defendants’ conduct before and after the Board revoked his supervised release. 

1. Defendants’ Conduct After November 14, 2013

Courtney’s claims regarding defendants’ behavior after 

November 14, 2013 are not barred by Heck. The Board revoked 

Courtney’s supervised release after it determined that he had 

not identified an approved host site. Courtney’s claims that 

defendants, after November 14, 2013, deliberately or recklessly ignored his grievances and communications regarding 

possible host sites, if substantiated, would not necessarily imply that the Board’s decision to revoke his supervised release 

on November 14, 2013 was invalid. 

In Gilbert v. Cook, 512 F.3d 899, 901 (7th Cir. 2008), we held 

that Heck did not bar a prisoner from suing for alleged violations of his constitutional rights that occurred after events that 

were the subject of prison discipline. In Gilbert, a prison disciplinary board determined that a prisoner had thrown a punch 

in a fight with guards, and the board revoked a year of his 

good-time credit. Id. at 900. While Heck barred claims that 

would challenge the board’s finding, it did not bar the prisoner’s claim that guards dislocated his shoulder in retaliation 

after his own punch. Id. at 901. We explained that Heck and 
No. 21-2697 13

Edwards “do not affect litigation about what happens after the 

[adjudicated offense] is completed.” Id.

The same reasoning applies here, and with even more 

force because Courtney did not act or fail to act—in any way 

he could control—to violate the terms of his scheduled release. Courtney alleges that after the Board entered its order 

revoking his supervised release, defendants deprived him of 

liberty by deliberately or recklessly failing to carry out their 

duties to respond to his grievances, to investigate his proposed host sites, and, if necessary, to assist him in finding a 

suitable site. He may bring that claim without undermining 

the Board’s November 14, 2013 finding that he lacked an approved host site as of that time. In fact, far from attacking the 

Board’s order, Courtney seeks to vindicate it. The order instructed that Courtney should be released “upon the approval 

of a viable host site as determined by IDOC.” Heck does not 

bar these claims.

2. Defendants’ Conduct Before November 14, 2013

We also find that Heck does not bar Courtney’s claims that 

defendants deliberately or recklessly failed to investigate potential host sites or to respond to his grievances before November 14, 2013. As noted above, the Board found that Courtney did not have an approved residence, as is required for 

mandatory supervised release. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code 

§ 1610.110(a)(1) (providing that a “proper and approved residence” is a condition for release on parole). Courtney does not 

challenge the Board’s finding. He agrees that the Department 

of Corrections never approved a host site for him. His claim 

is that defendants prolonged his imprisonment by deliberately or recklessly failing to act. Three host sites he submitted 

were never investigated, nor did the department find or even 
14 No. 21-2697 

propose any alternatives. As a result, no host site was approved, and he remained in prison for another year.

Defendants cite several cases, all non-precedential or otherwise non-binding, in which Heck barred claims by plaintiffs 

alleging that their parole was wrongly revoked. In those 

cases, parole was revoked because the relevant decision-making body determined that the parolee acted or failed to act in 

some manner that violated conditions of his parole.2 

This case is different. Though the Board’s order was styled 

as a “violation,” the order did not revoke Courtney’s supervised release because he engaged in any act of his own volition that violated terms of his mandatory supervised release. 

As Courtney himself stresses, he never lived at a location that 

violated the conditions of his release. Rather, his mandatory 

supervised release was revoked because an item on his release 

checklist was unchecked: he had no approved host site. 

That Courtney’s “violation” is poorly named is evident 

from the order itself. It distinguishes between violating the 

terms of supervised release and lacking an approved host site. 

The order is a standard form giving the Board four options. 

The Board may find (1) that the offender is not a violator, 

(2) that the offender is a violator, (3) that the offender is to be 

released “upon the approval of a viable host site as determined by IDOC,” or (4) that the hearing is continued. If the 

offender is found to be a “violator,” then the Board must 

2 E.g., Hadley v. Quinn, 524 F. App’x 290, 291 (7th Cir. 2013) (parole 

revoked after plaintiff left state without permission, in violation of parole 

conditions); Easterling v. Siarnicki, 435 F. App’x 524, 525 (7th Cir. 2011) (supervised release revoked after plaintiff refused to comply with requirement that he wear an ankle monitor and reside in transitional housing).
No. 21-2697 15

select from several rationales: that he committed a criminal 

offense, violated a condition of his release agreement or special order, absconded, or failed to report. The only box 

checked on the order revoking Courtney’s supervised release 

is the one indicating that his release would be effective upon 

the Department of Corrections’ approval of a host site. 

Because his release was contingent on the Department of 

Corrections approving a host site, the Board’s order was, at 

bottom, based not on a finding that Courtney had done anything wrong but on a finding that defendants in the Department had not done something: approved a host site for Courtney. The Board did not find that the host sites Courtney submitted were not suitable. That would be a different case. Here,

the Board simply found that no host site had been approved, 

a task that, as the Department’s Administrative Directive 

04.50.110 makes clear, Courtney was utterly incapable of 

achieving by himself. He needed defendants to act, and he alleges they deliberately or recklessly failed to do so. 

We acknowledge, of course, that the failure of officials to 

comply with departmental regulations or even state law does 

not necessarily violate the Constitution. E.g., Thompson v. City 

of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444, 454 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Estate of 

Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 746 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Section 

1983 protects against ‘constitutional violations, not violations 

of ... departmental regulation and ... practices ....’”), quoting 

Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003). By discussing defendants’ alleged failures to comply with Administrative Directive 04.50.110, we do not mean to imply that violations of the Directive are sufficient to establish a constitutional 

violation. They are not. 
16 No. 21-2697 

Rather, the Directive is relevant to Courtney’s claims insofar as it identifies the respective responsibilities of the inmate 

and the Department of Corrections to identify, investigate, 

and approve host sites. And while violations of state law or 

policy do not per se violate the Constitution, when those violations result in unjustified deprivations of liberty, the Constitution is implicated. For example, in Armstrong v. Squadrito, 

152 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 1998), the plaintiff had been held in jail 

without a hearing for 57 days without appearing before a 

judge, contrary to state law and standard operating procedures. We reversed summary judgment for defendants and 

denied qualified immunity. We noted: “While the Constitution does not mandate the specific procedures accorded by Indiana, neither does it tolerate the absence, following arrest, of 

any procedure whatsoever.” Id. at 575–76. In addition, in a 

case like this where many officials may have played a role in 

causing or failing to remedy Courtney’s prolonged imprisonment, state law or policy may help sort out questions of individual responsibility that can be so critical under § 1983. 

Another way to frame the Heck issue on these claims is to 

observe that if Courtney had sought relief while in custody, 

these claims would be understood best as calling for a writ of 

mandamus—ordering correction officials to find a suitable 

residence during supervised release—not a writ of habeas 

corpus. Courtney claims he was wrongfully imprisoned, but 

he traces his wrongful imprisonment to the defendants’ failure to perform their duties, not to a legal infirmity in the 

Board’s decision ordering his continued confinement. If 

Courtney can prove that defendants deliberately or recklessly 

failed to investigate host sites and to respond to his grievances, that proof would not imply that the Board acted improperly when it revoked his mandatory supervised release. 
No. 21-2697 17

The Board based its decision upon a finding that the Department of Corrections had not approved a host site. Courtney’s 

allegations are entirely consistent with that finding. Accordingly, Courtney’s claims, if successful, would not “necessarily 

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” 

Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82. 

Accordingly, Heck poses no bar to Courtney’s claims that 

at least some defendants deliberately or recklessly acted or 

failed to act in ways that caused him to spend an extra year in 

prison rather than on mandatory supervised release. The district court’s dismissal of Courtney’s challenges to the Board’s 

November 14, 2013 order revoking his mandatory supervised 

release is AFFIRMED, but the dismissal of his other claims is 

REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
18 No. 21-2697 

BRENNAN, Circuit Judge, concurring. I join the majority

opinion, and I write separately as to why I understand Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994), does not bar one of Courtney’s claims. 

Under Heck doctrine, “a § 1983 suit for damages that 

would ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of the fact of an inmate’s conviction, or ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of the 

length of an inmate’s sentence, is not cognizable under § 1983 

unless and until the inmate obtains favorable termination” 

through a state or federal challenge to his conviction or sentence. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (quoting 

Heck, 512 U.S. at 487). As the majority’s opinion points out, the 

Heck bar extends to litigation that calls into question the validity of parole revocation decisions. Knowlin v. Thompson, 207 

F.3d 907, 909 (7th Cir. 2000). 

The Illinois Prisoner Review Board, which is independent 

of the Department of Corrections, 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/3-3-

1(a), revoked Courtney’s Mandatory Supervised Release 

(MSR) because he lacked an approved host site at which to 

live during the term of his release. Nothing suggests the 

Board’s revocation decision has been vacated, reversed, or 

otherwise impugned. So, Heck prohibits Courtney from bringing a § 1983 claim that would, if successful, necessarily imply 

that the Court’s revocation decision is invalid. Heck, 512 U.S.

at 486. I agree with my colleagues that the success of two of 

Courtney’s claims—those alleging the revocation decision 

was made without due process and without evidence of a violation—would necessarily imply that his parole revocation 

was invalid, and thus that dismissal of those claims was 

proper.
No. 21-2697 19

The harder question concerns Courtney’s claim that defendants’ deliberate indifference caused him to be imprisoned 

for longer than he should have been. Success on this assertion

implicates the duration of Courtney’s incarceration, as Courtney must demonstrate that absent defendants’ deliberate indifference, he would have been released sooner. That brings 

his third claim very close to the Heck bar. Nelson, 541 U.S. at 

646–47. If Courtney prevails, it suggests a certain unfairness 

to his parole revocation. And this court has previously applied the Heck bar where a successful § 1983 claim “would cast 

a shadow over the conviction.” Hill v. Murphy, 785 F.3d 242, 

248 (7th Cir. 2015). 

Still, I agree with my colleagues that Courtney’s third 

claim should proceed, but for slightly different reasons. As 

noted, the key question under Heck is “whether a judgment in 

favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of 

his conviction or sentence.” 512 U.S. at 487. If it would, and 

the imprisonment is intact, the claim must be dismissed. Id. 

Our precedent guides this inquiry. When deciding whether

the Heck bar applies, we “must analyze the relationship between the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim and the charge on which he 

was convicted.” Hardrick v. City of Bolingbrook, 522 F.3d 758, 

762 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting VanGilder v. Baker, 435 F.3d 689, 

691 (7th Cir. 2006)). This requires careful consideration of 

what a successful § 1983 suit would necessarily imply, because “Heck forbids a prisoner in his civil rights case to challenge a finding in his criminal or prison-discipline case that 

was essential to the decision in that case.” Moore v. Mahone, 

652 F.3d 722, 723 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). So, for example, this court has held that a § 1983 claim alleging police 

used excessive force during an arrest does not necessarily 
20 No. 21-2697

imply the invalidity of a conviction for resisting that same arrest. Evans v. Poskon, 603 F.3d 362, 364 (7th Cir. 2010). 

Courtney’s third claim survives this analysis. A judgment 

in his favor means he should have been released sooner, but 

it does not necessarily imply the invalidity of his revocation. 

Comparing a putative judgment in Courtney’s favor with the 

Board’s revocation decision shows this. The Board revoked 

Courtney’s MSR because he lacked an approved host site. But 

a win for Courtney on his § 1983 claim does not necessarily 

imply the invalidity of his revocation. If Courtney prevails, it 

means the defendants’ deliberate indifference prevented him 

from obtaining an approved host site and leaving prison on 

his MSR date. Yet it also confirms the ground for the Board’s 

revocation—that Courtney lacked an approved site. In other 

words, a judgment for Courtney on his § 1983 claim means 

the Board’s revocation was proper, but that defendants’ unconstitutional conduct still caused him to stay in prison longer 

than he otherwise might have. Courtney’s third claim thus 

falls short of necessarily implying the invalidity of his parole 

revocation.

Heck often plainly bars § 1983 claims bearing on a prison 

board’s parole revocation decision. See, e.g., Knowlin, 207 F.3d 

at 909; Barker v. Reagle, No. 22-2572, 2023 WL 2931290, at *1–2 

(7th Cir. April 13, 2023); Easterling v. Siarnicki, 435 Fed. App’x 

524, 526 (7th Cir. 2011). But in this specific circumstance, I 

agree the Heck bar does not apply to Courtney’s third claim 

that defendants intentionally or recklessly failed to effect his 

release.