[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12184

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

WENDALL JERMAINE HALL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ELIZABETH PORFERT, 

Clinician, 

PATRICK MCCAWLEY, 

Clinician, 

JON CARNER, 

Security Chief, 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12184

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cv-00380-JES-MRM

____________________

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Wendall Hall is a sexually violent predator housed in Florida’s Civil Commitment Center. In May 2020, he was reported by 

two Commitment Center clinicians, Elizabeth Porfert and Patrick 

McCawley, for two separate instances of misconduct. Security 

Chief Carner held a disciplinary hearing and concluded that Hall

violated the Commitment Center’s conduct policy. As punishment, Chief Carner sent Hall to the Commitment Center’s confinement wing for sixty days. Chief Carner also lowered Hall’s “care 

level,” which appears to be a measurement of how far along Hall 

is in his rehabilitative process. Hall contends that Chief Carner’s 

findings and punishment will have a secondary effect of extending 

the amount of time Hall will be forced to spend in the Commitment Center.

Hall sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserts that Porfert, 

McCawley, and Chief Carner purposefully lied about Hall’s conduct. These lies were allegedly part of a coordinated effort aimed 

at getting Hall back for filing lawsuits or grievances against Porfert, 

as well as the defendants’ friends, Donald Sawyer and Emily 

Salema. Hall contends that Porfert’s, McCawley’s, and Chief 
22-12184 Opinion of the Court 3

Carner’s behavior was First Amendment retaliation. Hall also objects to Chief Carner’s handling of the disciplinary proceeding: Hall 

says that he was not given pre-hearing notice, nor was he allowed 

to call witnesses on his behalf or otherwise present a defense. Hall 

argues the disciplinary hearing and resulting punishment thus violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. Finally, Hall claims that the Commitment Center’s conduct policy is 

facially violative of the Due Process Clause because it is a duplicative punishment for past crimes for which Hall has already been 

convicted and served a prison sentence. 

The district court rejected all of Hall’s claims. Hall appealed. 

We affirm. 

Hall’s First Amendment retaliation claim and his due process attack on the disciplinary hearing are barred by the rule first 

announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck held that 

a plaintiff cannot maintain a section 1983 suit if a favorable ruling

would undermine or invalidate the plaintiff’s conviction or sentence. See Hall v. Merola, 67 F.4th 1282, 1290–91 (11th Cir. 2023). 

This so-called “Heck bar” prevents a plaintiff from suing under section 1983 unless and until the conviction has been ruled invalid. See 

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87. 

Heck is not confined to challenges to criminal convictions. 

The Supreme Court has applied it to suits that would question the 

validity of “prison disciplinary convictions.” Hall, 67 F.4th at 1291

(citing Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645–48 (1997)). And other 

circuits have held that Heck applies to claims brought by the civilly 
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12184

committed. See Thomas v. Eschen, 928 F.3d 709, 711–13 (8th Cir. 

2019); Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139–40 (9th Cir. 

2005); see also Turner v. Johnson, 466 F.App’x 214 (4th Cir. 2012); 

Thomas v. Schmitt, 380 F.App’x 549 (7th Cir. 2010); Banda v. N.J. Special Treatment Unit Annex, 164 F.App’x 286 (3d Cir. 2006). That’s a 

logical step: We often extend rules with prison origins to the civil 

commitment context. See Boatman v. Berreto, 938 F.3d 1275, 1276–

77 (11th Cir. 2019); Dolihite v. Maughon ex rel. Videon, 74 F.3d 1027, 

1041 (11th Cir. 1996). 

Because Heck applies, Hall’s suit is materially indistinguishable from Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). There, the plaintiff 

alleged “that he was completely denied the opportunity to put on 

a defense” or call witnesses to a prison disciplinary proceeding. Edwards, 520 U.S. at 646–47. The Edwards plaintiff likewise accused 

the “hearing officer himself” of “deceit and bias.” Id. at 647. Because 

the Edwards plaintiff’s success would have “necessarily impl[ied]

the invalidity of” the internal disciplinary conviction, the Supreme 

Court held that Heck barred the claim. Id. at 646. So too here. Hall 

claims that the two main witnesses against him lied in their reports 

and that the hearing officer not only denied him the ability to put 

on a defense but worked with those two witnesses to punish him.

To succeed on such claims would “necessarily imply” that his internal conviction for violating the Commitment Center’s conduct 

policy was invalid. Id. Thus, Heck bars his First Amendment retaliation claims and his due process attack on the disciplinary proceedings. 
22-12184 Opinion of the Court 5

That leaves Hall’s facial constitutional attack on the Commitment Center’s conduct policy. Heck does not bar that claim—at 

least to the extent that Hall is seeking to avoid future enforcement 

of that policy. Id. at 648. But the claim fails because Hall cannot

establish that the policy is a punishment for his past crimes. The 

civil commitment system is an effort to rehabilitate, not to punish. 

Accordingly, we have said that involuntary residency in the Florida 

Civil Commitment Center is not punitive. See Pesci v. Budz, 935 

F.3d 1159, 1166 (11th Cir. 2019). Our decision in Pesci presupposes 

that the Commitment Center’s rules are not punitive. If being civilly committed in the first place is not punishment for a previous 

crime as we held in Pesci, then it is not punitive to require residents 

to follow the Commitment Center’s conduct policy. So Hall’s facial 

constitutional attack must also fail.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.