2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
1-12-2010 

# Grie r v . K le m P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3551

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Grie r v . K le m" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1968. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1968P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 3551

E M M IT T G R IE R , J R ., A ppel l ant

v. S U P E R I N T E N D E N T E D W A R D J
. K L E M; E RI E CO UNT Y DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y; CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A; OFF I CE OF THE P ROTHONOTARY
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( No. 0 5
- c v - 0 0 0 0 5 E) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a u ric e B . C o h ill

A r gued on D ece m ber16, 2009 Be f o r e : F I S HE R, HAR DI M AN, a n d VAN AN T WER P E N,

C i r cui tJudges
.2 ( Fi l ed J anuary12, 2010) A nder s on T
. B ai l ey , E s q. J ones D ay 500 G r antSt r eet , Sui t e 4500 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orAppel lant J ohn D
. G oet z, E s q. J ones D ay 500 G r antSt r eet , Sui t e 4500 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orAppel lant C har l es T
. K otubyJ r . , E s q. ( A r gued) J ones D ay 5 1 L o u i s i a n a A v e n u e N
. W. W as hi ngt on D
. C
. , 20001 C ouns el f orAppel lant M atthew J
. M cLaughl i n, E s q. ( A r gued) A ss ista n t S o licito r f

o r E rie C o u n ty 246 W es tT enth St r eet E r i e, PA 16501 C ouns el f orE r i e D is tr i ct

A t t or ney Appel l eeG ri er li sted E d w ard J. K lem , S u p erinten d en t of S C I- 1 M ahoney , as a def

endanti n th is a cti o n. O n A ugus t31, 2009, M r. K lem n o tif

ied th is C o u rt h e w o u ld n o t b e p a rticip a tin g in this app eal
. P l ai nti ff r ecog nized i n o pen cou rt , and i n the bri efs, th a t M r. K le m c a n n o t p ro v id e h im t h e “ re lie f [ h e ] s e e k s .” ( A ppel l ant ’ s R epl y B r . 1 n. 1. ) Fur therm or e, Pl ai nt i ff c ons ent ed t o M r . K lem ’s di s m i s s al
. T her e i s no form al document at i on, h o w e v e r, co n f

irm in g th a t M r. K lem w a s d ism iss e d f ro m th is cas e. O n r emand, thi s C our tr ecomm ends thatPl ai n ti ff f i l e a m ot i on forvol unt arydi s m i s s al of M r . K l em underFed. R
. C i v. P. 41( a) , orthatM r . K l em m ove foran i n v o lunt arydi s m i s s al u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 (b ).
3

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudge
. A p p e llan t-P lain tiff

E m m ittG rie r, Jr. (“ G rie r” ) a p p e a ls fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng A ppel l eeD efe ndant s E r i e C ountyD i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s ( “D i s tr i ct A tto rn e y ” ) a n d S u p e rin ten d e n t E d w a rd K lem ’s m o tio n to di s m i s s hi s § 1983 cl ai m , det erm i ni ng i ti s barr ed bythe Heck rul e. Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , thi s C our tw i l l vaca t e the 1 D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r a n d re m a n d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . I.4 G r i erw as convi ct ed of tw o count s of r ape, one count of att empt ed r ape, one countof bur gl aryand thr ee c ount s of unl aw ful r es tr ai nt
. H e r ece i ved a s ent ence of tw enty - ei ght a n d -o n e -h a lf

to se v e n ty -f

iv e y e a rs o f

im p riso n m e n t. T h e f

a c ts u n d e rl y in g th e s e c h a rg e s a re a s f o llo w s . O n J u n e 3 0 , 1 9 9 8 , a perpet rat or ent ered M s. L oret t a H ansbrew ’s (“M s. H ans br ew ”) hom e w hi l e s he w as s l eepi ng, t aped he rey es and hands , and then r aped he r( the “J une i nci dent ”)
. She never s aw heras s ai l ant ’ s fac e orr ecogni zed hi s m uffl ed voi ce, but sh e n o ti ce d that h e w as A frican -A m erican
. F ive m o n ths later, i n N ovember , M s . H ans br ew w as att acke d agai n ( the
“ N o v e m b e r i n c id e n t” ). A p e rp e tr a to r h a d h id d e n in h e r v a n . H e demanded s he pul l overw hi l e s he w as dr i vi ng. T hen, he t aped he rey es , bound herfee t , and uns ucce s s ful l yatt empt ed t o r ape he r . A gai n, M s . H ans br ew di d nots ee hi s fac e. O n A u g u st 31 , 1 9 9 9 , G ri er v isi ted M s. H an sb rew ’s ho m e t o reque stw at er for hi s r adiat or. H e kn ew M s. H ans br ew beca us e he w as herdaught er ’ s fi ancé
. D ur i ng the vi s i t , G r i erand M s . H ans br ew had a s exual encount er( the
“ A u g u st in c id e n t”) . M s. H a n sb re w re p o rte d th e in c id e n t to th e p o l i c e , w h o t o o k G r i e ri n t o c u s t o d y. G ri er w ai ved his Mi r anda r i g h t s u p o n a rr e s t
. He offe r ed t o m ake a vi deot aped s t at ementout s i de the pr es ence of couns el
. I n i t , he admi t t ed t o havi ng had a s exual encount erw i th M s . H ans br ew on A ugus t31, 1999. A hal fhouraft erthe compl et i on of the fi r s ti nt ervi ew , a det ect i ve i ni t i at ed a s econd vi deot aped i nt ervi ew w her e he a s ked G r i er a b o u t th e Ju n e a n d N o v e m b e r in c id e n ts. G rie r c o n f e ss e d to b o th o f th o se c rim e s a s w e ll.5 Fol l ow i ng both the J une and A ugus ti nci dent s , m edi cal per s onnel us ed r ape ki t s t o gatherbi ol ogi cal evi dence fr om M s. H a n sb re w . T h e ra p e k its w e re se n t to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia St at e Pol i ce Labor at oryt o be compar ed t o det erm i ne i f the sam e p erp etrator h ad co m m itted b o th crim es. T h e k it s w ere notanal y zed, how ever , beca us e G r i ergave vi deot aped sta tem e n ts c o n f

e ss in g to th e se c rim e s. P o lice tes tifie d th a t a s t at e l abor at orypol i cypr event s the l abor at oryfr om anal y zi ng D N A e v id e n c e in c a se s w h e re th e id e n tityo f th e d e f e n d a n t is noti n ques t i on due t o a t aped c onfes s i on. G r i erl at ert es t i fi ed, and cont i nues t o cont end, thathe di d notcomm i tthe J une and N ovembercr i m es . H e cl ai m s he c o n f e ss e d to th e c rim e s in e rro r b e c a u se h e w a s e x tre m e ly e m o tio n a l a n d c o n f

u s e d
. G r i er ’ s defe ns e att orney s neverm oved t o s uppr es s the vi deot aped s t at ement s , and nei therG r i ernorthe C o m m o n w e a lth h a d th e D N A tes ted . G rie r w a s in iti a lly rep rese n ted b yp u b li c d ef en d er A
. J. A d am s (“A d am s”). D espi t e G ri er’ s r equ est s, A dam s di d n ot m ov e t o sup press G r i er ’ s vi deot aped s t at ement s , concl udi ng s uch a mot i on w oul d be bas el es s . D ue t o a per s onal i tyconfl i ct , A dams w as perm i t t ed t o w i thdr aw fr om G r i er ’ s cas e i n A pr i l 2000. G r i ercont ends hi s s ubs equentatt orney , J ames P ito n y a k (“ P ito n y a k ” ), d id n o t f o llo w o r c o n v e yh is in s tru c tio n s to h a v e D N A te s tin g d o n e o n b o th ra p e k its
. Pi t ony ak, how ever , cl ai m s thathe and G r i erdi s cus s ed, but d ec ided ag ains t, req u esti n g D N A test ing
. T h e ra p e k it s w ere nevers ubj ect ed t o D N A t es t i ng and the j uryconvi ct ed G r i erE ven tho ug h P enn sy l van i a’s P ost con vict i on D N A A ccess 2 La w we n ti n t o e f

f e c tb e twe e n th e t i m e Gr i e rf i l e d h i s P C RA pet i t i on and w hen the court i s s ued i t s j udgm ent , the courtm ade its d e te rm in a tio n w ith o u t c itin g it. See 42 Pa. C
. S. § 9 5 4 3. 1. T her efor e, G r i er ’ s r eques t for pos t convi ct i on acc es s t o evi dence 6 pr i m ar i l ybas ed on ey ew i tnes s t es t i m onyoffe r ed bythe C om m on w eal th an d G ri er’ s vi deo t aped st at em ents
. G r i erfi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on foracqui t t al ora new tr i al m ai ntai ning his i nn ocen ce and request i ng D N A analy si s, w hi ch w as deni ed. T he Penns y l vani a Super i orC our taff i r m ed the deni al , and the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed G ri e r’ s p e titio n f

o r a p p e a l. G r i erfi l ed a pr o s e m ot i on forpos t convi ct i on col l at er al r el i ef ( “PC R A ”) i n w hi ch he c l ai m ed i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l an d th a t th e p ro se c u to r v io late d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts b ym is re p re s e n tin g th e f a c ts in th e c a s e . H e al l eged his cou nsel w as i neff ect i ve fo r fai l i ng t o reque st D N A anal y s i s and fornotm ovi ng t o s uppr es s hi s vi deot aped s t at ement s . G r i erfi l ed a s uppl ement al br i ef thr ough a p p o in ted c o u n se l, em p h a siz in g th a t h e w a s p u rsu in g c o u rto rde red D N A test ing
. A fter o ral argu m en t and an ev iden ti ary hear i ng, J udge D om i tr ovi ch di s m i s s ed G r i er ’ s PC R A pet i t i on as “w i thoutm er i t
. ” ( A pp. A 126. ) T he courtdet erm i ned that G r i erw as notent i t l ed t o pos t convi ct i on D N A t es t i ng under P enn sy l van i a preceden tthat pr ecl ud es post con vict i on access to D N A ev iden ce w h en the c o n v ict ion rests on v o lun tary c o n f e s s io n s . S e e C o m m o n w e a lth v . G o d sh a lk , 679 A
. 2d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 7 (P a. 19 9 5 ). 2h a s n e v e r b e e n c o n s id e re d u n d e r t h is n e w s ta tu te
. N ot abl y , the bart o pos t convi ct i on D N A t es t i ng bas ed on a pr e- char ge conf

es s i on has been appl i ed t o pet i t i ons fi l ed under P e n n s y l v a n i a ’ s P o s t c o n v i c t i o n DNA Ac c e s s L a w. C om m onw eal th v. Y

oung , 8 7 3 A .2 d 7 2 0 , 7 2 7 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 2005)
. B ut , the Pennsy l vani a Supr eme C our thas gr ant ed an ap p ea l o n th e issu e o f w h ethe r a c o n fe ssion sh o u ld b ar a pet i t i oner ’ s acc es s t o p o s t c o n v i c t i o n DN A t e s t i ng. C om m onw eal th v. W

r ight , 9 5 1 A
. 2 d 2 6 3 (P a. 20 0 8 ). N eith er the M ag istrate Ju d g e n o r th e D istri ct C o u rt 3 ent ert ai ned D efe ndant s ’ ar gum ent s fordi s m i s s al b ased on r es ju d ica ta o r c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 7 G rie r a lleg e s th a t h e d id n o t ap p e a l th e d e n ial o f h is f irst P C R A d u e to a m isc o m m u n ica tio n w ith c o u n se l. H is appea l r i ght s w er e r ei ns t at ed af t erhe i nform ed the courtof thi s m i s comm uni cat i on. T hen, the Penns y l vani a Super i or C our taff i r m ed the deni al of hi s PC R A pet i t i on, and the P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ie d h is re q u e s t f o r a p p e a l. O n Ja n u a ry6 , 2 0 0 5 , G rie r f iled th is § 1 9 8 3 c laim a lleg in g th e D istric t A tto rn e ya n d M r. K lem d e n ied h is pr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s byr efus i ng hi m acc es s t o the r ape ki t s forD N A t es t i ng. T he ca s e w as r efe rr ed t o a U ni t ed St at es M agi s tr at e J udge forr ecomm endat i on. G r i erm oved fors um m aryj udgm ent , and D efe ndant s m oved t o di s m i s s the act i on bas ed on the fa i l ur e t o m ake outa cogni zabl e § 1983 cl ai m and on the pr i nci pl es of r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al e sto p p e l. 3 T he U ni t ed St at es M agi s tr at e J udge det erm i ned that G ri er’s all eg ati o n “n ec essa ri lyim p li ca tes .
. . h is st ate c o u rt co n v ict ion s. ” (A p p . A 6
. ) S h e n o ted th at un d er Heck v. H u m p h r e y , a pr i s onercannotbr i ng a § 1983 cl ai m i f the su cc ess o f th at claim w o u ld u n d erm ine th e p ri so n er’s convi ct i on ors ent ence , unl es s thatconvi ct i on ors ent ence hasT he M agi s tr at e J udge also co m m ent ed thatthe true 4 d ef en d an t i n this case is Jud g e D o m itrov ich. Itn o ted, ho w ev er, thata § 1983 cl ai m agai ns tJ udge D om i tr ovi ch w o u ld be di s m issed underpr i nci pl es of j udi ci al i m m uni ty . W e ca nnot aff i r m the j udgm ent bel ow on thi s bas i s , how ever . T he evi dence thatG r i ers eeks i s i n th e cu st odyof the Eri e C ountyD i s tr i ct A t t orney , and no s how i ng has been made thathe i s notthe p ro p e r d e f

e n d a n t. 8 a lr e a d yb e e n c a lle d in to q u e s tio n . 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 7 (1 9 9 4 ). T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatG r i er ’ s m ot i on be di s m i s s ed “a s an i m pr operatt empt t o col l at er al l yatt ack p lai n ti ff ’s st ate c o u rtcrim inal co n v ict ion
. ” (A p p . A 5
. ) 4 B as ed on the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r ecomm endat i on, on J une 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted D e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss a n d d e n ied G rie r’s re q u e st f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. G rie r f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. T h is C o u rt sta y e d h is appea l pendi ng the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n D is tr i ct A t t or ney’s O

f f i ce f orthe Thi r d Judi ci alD is tr i ct v. O s bor ne , w her e the Supr eme C our tgr ant ed ce rt i or ar i on, butdi d not deci de, the ques t i on of w hetheran i ncar cer at ed pl ai nt i ff w as b a rre d f ro m b rin g in g a § 1 9 8 3 c laim to re q u e st a c c e ss to evi dence forpos t convi ct i on D N A anal y s i s . 129 S. C t
. 2308, 2 3 1 9 (20 0 9 ). II. T he D i s tr i ctC our texer ci s ed s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overG r i er ’ s § 1983 cl ai m pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1331 and § 1343. T hi s C our thas appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1
. T h is C o u rtex erc ises p lena ry rev iew o v er a d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f

a m o tio n to d ism iss f

o r f a ilu re to sta te a c la im
. AT& T Cor

p. v . J M C Tele c om, LLC , 470 F. 3d 525, 5 3 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e d o n o t in q u ire w h e th e r a p lain tiff w ill u lti m a telyp re v a il w h e n c o n sid e rin g a m o tio n to d ism iss , o n ly9 w h ethe r th e p lai n ti ff

is en ti tl ed to o ff

er e v iden ce to su p p o rt h is o r h e r c la im s . N

am iv. Fauver , 8 2 F
. 3 d 6 3 , 6 5 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 6 ). I I I . T h is case req u ir es th is C o u rtto co n side r th e b o u n d ary betw een tw o s t atut es thatpr ovi de pr i s oner s acc es s t o a fe der al forum t o br i ng cl ai m s of uncons t i tut i onal tr eatm entatthe hands of s t at e off

i ci al s : the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1871, 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983, and the fe der al habea s corpus s t atut e, 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254. Sect i on 1983 pr ovi des fora br oad r i ghtof act i on, al l ow i ng r ecove ryforany one s uffe r i ng fr om “the depr i vat i on of anyr i ght s , pr i vi l eges , ori m m uni t i es s ecur ed by th e C o n stitu tio n ” b ya n y o n e a c tin g u n d e r th e c o lo r o f sta te l aw . 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983. B y§ 1983’ s t erm s , al l habea s corpus act i ons coul d be br oughtas § 1983 cl ai m s ; t o pr eventthat , the Supr eme C our tdet erm i ned thatthe tw o pr ovi s i ons m us tbe re a d in h a rm o n y . See Pre is erv. R odr iguez , 411 U
. S. 475, 500 ( 1973)
. T he Supr eme C our tcr eat ed an “ i m pl i ci texce pt i on” t o § 1983’ s br oad s cope f oract i ons thatl i e atthe “c or e” of h a b e a s c o rp u s , id

. at 48 7 , 4 8 9 , w h ich in clud e a n yp ri so n er’s c laim s th a t ch a llen g e th e “ v a lid ityo f th e f a c t o r le n g th o f

th e ir confi nement , ” id

. a t 4 9 0
. I n Heck v. H um phr ey , the Supr eme C our texpande d the ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch a pr i s oneri s barr ed fr om br i ngi ng a § 1983 cl ai m . 512 U
. S. 477 ( 1994)
. I thel d a pr i s onerdoes not have a cogni zabl e § 1983 cl ai m , even i f he ors he does not s eek r el i ef f

r om the fa ctordur at i on of conf i nement , for al l eged unc ons t i tut i onal conductthatw oul d i nval i dat e hi s or herunder l y i ng s ent ence orconvi ct i on unl es s thatconvi ct i on h a s a lr e a d yb e e n c a lle d in to q u e s tio n . Id

. at486- 87. T he Supr eme C our tther ebyeff ect i vel ybarr ed pr i s oner s fr om col l at er al l yatt acki ng thei runder l y i ng convi ct i ons , di r ect l yor10 i ndi r ect l y , thr ough the § 1983 vehi cl e. T o det erm i ne w hether a § 1 9 8 3 c laim sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d a s a n im p e rm iss ib le col l at er al att ack on a n under l y i ng convi ct i on, “[A ] di s tr i ctcourtm us tcons i derw hethera j udgm ent i n favor of t he pl ai nt i ff w oul d nece s s ar i l yi m pl ythe i nval i di tyof hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence; i f i tw oul d, the compl ai ntm us tbe di s m i s s ed unl es s the pl ai nt i ff can dem ons tr at e t hat the convi ct i on ors ent ence has alread yb ee n inv ali d ated
. B u t i f th e d istri ct co u rt d e ter m in e s th a t th e p lain tiff ’s a c tio n , ev e n if su c c e ss f u l, w ill n o t demonstr at e the i nval i di tyof any out s t andi ng cr i m i nal j udgm entagai ns tthe pl ai nt i ff, the ac t i on s houl d be al l ow ed to pr ocee d, i n the a b s e n c e o f

s o m e o th e r b a r t o th e s u it.” Id . a t 4 8 7
. D e f e n d a n ts c o n ten d th a t th e re lief G rie r se e k s w o u ld nece s s ar i l yi m pl i cat e orunderm i ne the val i di tyof hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i ons . Pr evi ous l y , s ever al appel l at e court s w er e s pl i tas t o w hethera § 1 98 3 clai m t o co m pel s t at e off i ci al s t o rel ease e v id e n c e f

o r p o stc o n v ictio n D N A tes tin g is a c laim se e k in g to u n d e rm in e a p la in tif

f ’s c o n v ic tio n . C om

par e Kut z nerv. Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty , 303 F. 3d 339, 340 ( 5th C i r . 2002) (h o ld in g th a t “n o § 1 9 8 3 c laim e x ists f o r in ju n c tiv e re lief

to co m p el D N A test ing ”), H ar vey v. H

or an , 278 F. 3d 370, 377 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( s a m e ), and B oyl e v. Mayer , 4 6 F ed
. A p p ’x 3 4 0 , 3 4 0 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( s a m e ), w i th B r adl ey v . P r yor , 305 F .3 d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 9 0 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (h o ld in g th a t a § 1 9 8 3 c laim re q u e stin g re lea se o f

e v id e n c e f

o r D N A tes tin g is c o g n iza b le becau se pl ai nti ff o nlyseeks access t o ev i den ce). T hese o p i n i o n s , h o we v e r , we r e a l l e n t e r e d p r i o rt o th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n W

i lki ns on v. D ot

s on . 5 4 4 U .S . 7 4 (2 0 0 5 ). Fol l ow i ng D ot

s on , the S u p re m e C o u rt n o ted th a t th e c irc u it11 s p lit f a d e d a w a y . See O s bor ne , 129 S. C t
. at2318 ( not i ng that s i nce D ot

s on , al l cou rt s t o co nsi der w hetherpri soners can use § 1983 cl ai m s t o r eques tacc es s t o bi ol ogi cal evi dence have ag ree d ). I n D ot s on , the S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at st ate p ri so n ers m aybr i ng § 1983 cl ai m s t o r eques tnew par ol e hea r i ngs under f a ire r p ro c e d u re s b e c a u se se e k in g to in v a lid a te s tate pr ocedur es “w i l l not‘ nece s s ar i l yi m pl ythe i nval i di tyof [thei r ] convi ct i on[s ] ors ent ence [s ]
. ’ ” D ot s on , 54 4 U. S. at82 ( quot i ng Heck , 512 U
. S. at487)
. T he C our tacknow l edged thatthe pl ai nt i ffs “hope[ d] ” thei r§ 1983 cl ai m s w oul d “br i ng aboutear l i err el eas e, ” butthe C our tdet erm i ned thathope w as nots uffi ci entt o bara § 1983 cl ai m i f thathope coul d notbe re a liz e d w ith o u t f

u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . Id

. a t 7 8 , 8 2
. C our t s have i nt erpr et ed D ot s on as r ej ect i ng the a rg u m e n t o f

f e re d b yD e f

e n d a n ts in th is c a se – th a t Heck b ars a n y§ 1 9 8 3 c laim th a t a p lain tiff h o p e s w ill se t th e sta g e to b ri n g h im o r h e r s p e e d ie r r e le a s e f ro m p ri s o n . McK i then v. Br o wn , 4 8 1 F .3 d 8 9 , 1 0 2 -0 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); Savor y v. Lyons , 4 6 9 F .3 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 2 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); O sb o rn e v . D ist. A tto rn e y ’s O ffi c e fo r T

h irdJ u d icia l D ist. , 423 F. 3d 1050, 1 0 5 4 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), r ev’ d on othergr ounds , 129 S. C t
. 2308 (2 0 0 9 ); cf

. G eorgev i ch v. Strauss , 772 F. 2d 1078, 1087 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( det erm i ni ng pr i ort o D ot s on that“the fa ctthat pr i s oner ’ s s ucce s s i n the l i t i gat i on m i ghti ncr eas e the cha nce f o r e a rlyre lea se d o e s n o t, i n itse lf , tran sf o rm th e a c tio n in to o n e f o r h a b e a s c o rp u s ” ). D ot s on i ndi cat ed thatthe pr oper in q u iryto d e ter m in e w h e th e r a p riso n e r’s § 1 9 8 3 c laim f a lls in to th e h a b e a s e x c e p tio n is w h e th e r h is o r h e r su c c e ss w o u ld n e c e ss a rily r equi r e the pr i s oner ’ s r el eas e ora r educt i on i n the p ri s o n e r’ s s e n te n c e . McK i then , 481 F. 3d at102 ( ci t i ng D ot s on , 5 4 4 U .S . at 8 0 ). T h u s, it is “ irre lev a n t” th a t a pr i s onerm i ght , fol l ow i ng s ucce s s i n a § 1983 s ui t , fi nd12 hi m s el f orher s el f i n a bett erpos i t i on t o r ai s e s ubs equent c h a lle n g e s to h is c o n v ic tio n o r s e n te n c e . Id

. I n l i ghtof D ot

s on , al l thr ee appel l at e court s thathave cons i der ed the ques t i on have he l d thata pl ai nt i ff c an us e the § 1983 vehi cl e t o r eques tthe r el eas e of e vi dence for p o s tc o n v ic tio n D N A a n a lysis
. McK i then , 481 F. 3d at103; Sa v o r y , 4 6 9 F .3 d a t 6 7 2 ; D ist
. A t t orney’s O f f i ce f or T hird J u d icia l D ist. , 423 F. 3d at1054- 55. T h e yre a so n th a t Heck does notbarr eques t s forD N A anal y s i s beca us e, even i f a plai nti ff p revai l s, he o r s he m erel ygains access t o evi dence , a n d h a v in g a c c e ss to e v id e n c e d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rilyin v a lid a te th e p ri s o n e r’ s c o n v ic tio n . McK i then , 481 F. 3d at102- 03; Sa vory , 4 6 9 F .3 d a t 6 7 2 . A t b e st, a p lain tiff m a yb e a b le to use t he resul t s of t he D N A analy si s i n fu ture proceedings, w h ich is n o t pro h ibit ed u n d er Heck
. McK i then , 481 F. 3d at 103; Sa v o r

y , 469 F. 3d at672. W e fi nd thi s r eas oni ng per s uas i ve. T h e S u p rem e C o u rtn ev er d eterm ined w h ethe r a pr i s onercoul d us e a § 1983 c l ai m t o gai n pos t convi ct i on a c c e ss to e v id e n c e f

o r D N A tes tin g , b u t ita ss u m e d th e N in th C irc u it co rre c tlyf

o u n d th a t Heck d id n o t b a r s u c h a c la im
. O s b o r n e , 129 S. C t
. at2319. N ot abl y , fourof the J us t i ces endor s ed the N i nth C i r cui t ’ s det erm i nat i on thata pr i s oner c o u ld u s e a § 1 9 8 3 c la im in th is m a n n e r. Id

. a t 2 3 3 1 n .1 ( St evens , J
. , di s s ent i ng)
. Si m i l ar l y , thi s C our thas noti s s ued a b in d in g o p in io n re g a rd in g w h e th e r a p lain tiff m a ya v a il h im orher s el f of the § 1983 vehi cl e, r atherthan a ha beas corpus pr ocee di ng, t o r eques tacc es s t o evi dence forpos t convi ct i on D N A a n a lysis
. I n l i ghtof

O s bor ne and D o ts o n , w e agr ee w i th our s i s t ercourt s and hol d thati n the narr ow ci r cumst ance w her e a pr i s onerfi l es a § 1983 cl ai m t o r eques tacc es s t o evi dence for13 D N A t es t i ng, thatcl ai m i s notbarr ed bythe pr i nci pl es out l i ned i n He c k

. E ven i f G r i erdoes pr evai l on thi s § 1983 cl ai m , he w i l l m er el ygai n acc es s t o bi ol ogi cal evi dence , w h ich in a n d o f

itse lf c a n n o t in v a lid a te o r u n d e rm in e h is c o n v ic tio n s . T here i s no sub st anti ve d ue p rocess ri gh tt o acce ss D N A e v id e n c e , O s bor ne , 1 2 9 S . C t. at2322, and pr ocedur al d u e p ro c e ss d o e s n o t r equi r e that a di stri ctat t orneydis cl ose al l pot ent i al l yexcul pat oryevi dence forpos t convi ct i on r el i ef to a p ri s o n e r, i d. at23 19 -20. T herefore, bydecidi ng G ri er’ s § 1 9 8 3 c laim is n o t b a rre d , w e h a v e n o t d e ter m in e d w h e th e r h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts h a v e b e e n v io late d . T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t a d d re s s th is is s u e . G r i err eques t s thi s C our tr emand t hi s cas e t o the D i s tr i ctC our tt o det erm i ne w hetherG r i er ’ s pr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed; but , the Eri e D i s tr i ctA t t orney su g g ests su ch a re m an d is “p o intl ess.” (A p p ell ee ’s B r. 1 6
. ) T he E ri e D i stri ctA t t orneyexp l ai ns t hat r em and i s point l ess b e c a u se th e re is n o sta te o r f e d e ra l au th o rityw h ich w o u ld a f f o r d Gr i e ra d u e p r o c e s s r i g h tt o o b t a i n p o s t c o n v i c t i o n DNA tes tin g . W h e th e r G rie r w ill su c c e ss f u llyd e m o n stra te th a t h is due pr oces s r i ght s have be en vi ol at ed i n a s ubs equent pr ocee di ng i s bey ond the s cope of thi s appea l and i s bes i de th e p o in t. S e e Na mi , 82 F. 3d at65 ( not i ng thatw hen co n side ri n g a m o ti o n to d ism iss, this C o u rtd o es “ n o t i n q u ir e w h e th e r t h e p la in tif

f s w ill u ltim a te ly p re v a il” ). I n O s bor ne , the Supr eme C our thel d thatcons t i tut i onal claim s li k e G ri er’s m u st be an aly ze d “w ith in the fra m ew o rk of the St at e’ s pr ocedur es forpos t convi ct i on r el i ef” and that o n lyw h e n th o se p ro c e d u re s a re d e ter m in e d f u n d a m e n tally unfai rorcons t i tut i onal l yi nadequa t e w i l l a fe der al act i on u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 lie
. O s bor ne , 1 2 9 S
. C t. at 23 2 0
. T h e C o u rt14 thus envi s i oned a pl ai nt i ff l i ke G r i er , w ho avai l ed hi m s el f of st at e proced ures w i tho ut s uccess and cl ai m s a due p rocess vi ol at i on pr eci s el ybeca us e of thatfai l ur e. T her efor e, as i ns truct ed bythe Supr eme C our ti n O s bor ne , i d. , w e w ill r emand t hi s cas e t o the D i s tr i ctC our tt o det erm i ne w hether G rie r’s p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts, w h e n c o n sid e re d w ith in the fr amew or k of Penns y l vani a’ s pr ocedur es for pos t convi ct i on r el i ef, w er e vi ol at ed. I V. W e re -e m p h a siz e th a t o u r h o ld in g in th is c a se is n a rro w a n d w e d e c id e o n lyth a t a p a rtyc a n u se a § 1 9 8 3 c laim to re q u e s t a c c e s s to e v id e n c e f o r p o s tc o n v ic tio n D N A te s tin g . W e do notdeci de thatthe deni al of ac ces s nece s s ar i l yvi ol at es a pr i s oner ’ s due pr oces s r i ght s orthata def endantcan us e a § 1983 cl ai m t o r eques tpos t convi ct i on acc es s t o evi dence for otherr eas ons . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e vac at e the D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n d e ter m in in g th a t Heck bar s a § 1983 c l a i m r e q u e s t i n g a c c e s s t o e v i d e n c e f o rp o s t c o n v i c t i o n DNA t es t i ng. W e r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs t o det erm i ne w hether , bas ed on O s bor ne , G ri er’ s procedu ral du e process r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed

.