Document: 540 U.S. 749 MUHAMMAD, AKA MEASEv.CLOSE. No. 02-9065. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 1, 2003. Decided February 25, 2004. Under federal law, challenges to the validity confinement or its duration are province habeas corpus, but requests for relief turning on circumstances may be raised under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Where a prisoner's 1983 action would implicitly question conviction's sentence's duration, litigant must first achieve favorable termination his available state, habeas, opportunities challenge underlying conviction sentence. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 477. has been applied in prison's administrative that could affect credits toward release based good-time served, Edwards Balisok, 520 641, is not implicated by threatens no consequence duration. Here, prison rules required prehearing detention when petitioner Muhammad, an inmate, was charged with "threatening behavior" aftermath confrontation respondent Close, official. Muhammad acquitted threatening behavior at hearing six days later, found guilty insolence, which have mandatory. He then filed this action, alleging Close had him (subjecting lockup) retaliation prior lawsuits and grievance proceedings against Close. His amended complaint did insolence conviction, hearing, seek expunge misconduct finding, seeking only damages alleged physical, mental, emotional injuries sustained during detention. Accepting Magistrate Judge's recommendation, District granted summary judgment ground failed present sufficient evidence raise material fact as element. In affirming, Sixth Circuit barred because sought expungement charge from record he such after satisfying Heck's requirement. Held: The Circuit's decision flawed matter law. making erroneous factual finding record, court simply overlooked relief. This error compounded court's mistaken view applies categorically all suits challenging disciplinary proceedings. determinations here do any implication about necessarily time served. effect state law regulation, case, Judge expressly assumed were eliminated challenged action. Because claim granted, requirement does apply. Having previously affected allegedly retaliatory overcharge consequential detention, waived 11th-hour contention squarely point. 47 Fed. Appx. 738, reversed remanded. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT. Corinne Beckwith, appointment Court, 539 925, argued cause petitioner. With her brief James W. Klein, Samia Fam, Giovanna Shay. Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General Michigan, respondent. briefs Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Linda M. Olivieri Kevin Himebaugh* PER CURIAM. 1 * Federal opens two main avenues complaints related imprisonment: petition 28 2254, Civil Rights Act 1871, Rev. Stat. 1979, amended, Challenges particulars affecting Preiser Rodriguez, 411 475, 500 (1973); presented Some cases hybrids, prisoner unavailable notably damages, allegations support recompense, imply invalidity either particular denying short serving maximum term confinement. 477 (1994), we held where success sentence, Accordingly, 641 (1997), claiming equitable procedural defect process, taken plaintiff good each instance, conditioning right bring result litigation served practical objective preserving limitations availability remedies. petitions corpus other exhausted. 2254(b)(1)(A). See Rose Lundy, 455 509 (1982). Prisoners suing 1983, contrast, generally face substantially lower gate, even Prison Litigation Reform 1995 exhausted first. 1997e(a). 2 resort before not, however, sentence.1 There need preserve exhaustion rule impediment example.2 II 3 suit grew out between petitioner, Michigan official, App. 70. According complaint, eating breakfast saw "staring through hallway window." Id., 71. Eventually stared back, provoking assume "a fighting stance" "com[e] into dining area fast pace contorted." Ibid. stood up faced him, within foot one another, asked, "whats [sic] up," while angerly [sic]." confrontation, handcuffed, cell, violating prohibiting "Threatening Behavior." (Emphasis deleted.)3 rules, special charge, occurred later. behavior, lesser infraction mandatory.4 serve additional 7 deprived privileges 30 penalties insolence. 4 brought (and subjected mandatory 72. original obtaining counsel, neither nor subsequent juncture Brief Petitioner 42. conceded determination justified. $10,000 compensatory punitive "for mental sustained" mandated attributable Close's motive. 5 Following discovery, recommended come forward genuine issue 63. adopted recommendation. B 6 appealed States Appeals Circuit, which, opinion designated publication, affirmed though basis Court. 738 (2002). Instead considering conclusion produced inadequate retaliation, dispositive if sustained, sought, among relief, record. Relying upon precedent, see Huey Stine, 230 F. 3d 226 (2000), occasioned thus maintained split applicability absence going four Circuits having contrary view. Leamer Fauver, 288 532, 542-544 (CA3 2002); DeWalt Carter, 224 607, 613 (CA7 2000); Jenkins Haubert, 179 19, 27 (CA2 1999); Brown Plaut, 131 163, 167-169 (CADC 1997). We certiorari resolve conflict, 925 (2003), now reverse. III Its assumption 8 following expressed precedent But these although they (by bearing award revocation credits) so. called question. therefore construed odds State's calculation accordance That is, recognized theory, inapplicable. IV 9 tries salvage appellate arguing point because, succeeded, entitled restoration some less spent prison. Respondent 17-18. eleventh-hour waived. report stated complained of, every opportunity position Appeals. legal premises litigated, cannot it now. Auer Robbins, 519 452, 464 (1997). 10 Appeals, accordingly, reversed, case remanded consideration further consistent opinion. 11 It so ordered. Notes: Alphonse Gerhardstein Advocacy Center amicus curiae urging reversal. incarceration matters underHeck ordered rules. never followed speculation 499 (1973), subject "additional unconstitutional restraints" might independent State here. Members unavailability reasons also dispense theHeck 477, 491 (1994) (SOUTER, J., concurring judgment); Spencer Kemna, 523 21-22 (1998) (GINSBURG, concurring). occasion settle issue. Department Corrections Policy Directive, 03.03.105 (June 6, 1994) (Directive), defines Behavior" "Words, actions expresses a[n] intent injure physically abuse another person." 40 (emphasis deleted) Directive "Insolence" actions, intended harass, alarm employee."Id., 44 deleted).

Category: 1