Document: 520 U.S. 641117 S. Ct. 1584137 L. Ed. 2d 906 GARY EDWARDS AND TANA WOOD, PETITIONERSv.JERRY B. BALISOK No. 95-1352 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES November 13, 1996, ArguedMay 19, 1997, Decided Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court Appeals Ninth Circuit. Kathleen D. Mix argued cause petitioners. Thomas H. Speedy Rice respondent. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. GINSBURG, filed concurring opinion, in which SOUTER and BREYER, JJ., joined. JUSTICE SCALIA 1 In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 477, 487, 129 383, 114 2364 (1994), this held that state prisoner's claim damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if "a judgment favor plaintiff would necessarily imply invalidity his conviction or sentence," unless prisoner can demonstrate sentence has previously been invalidated. This case presents question whether declaratory relief brought by challenging validity procedures used deprive him good-time credits 1983. 2 Respondent Jerry Balisok an inmate at Washington State Penitentiary Walla Walla. On August 16, 1993, he was charged with, hearing on September found guilty of, four prison infractions. He sentenced 10 days isolation, 20 segregation, deprivation 30 days' credit had earned toward release. His appeal within prison's system rejected failure comply with applicable procedural requirements. 3 January 26, 1994, respondent present action alleging disciplinary proceeding violated Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. amended complaint requested declaration employed officials process, compensatory punitive use unconstitutional procedures, injunction prevent future violations, any other court deems just equitable. Taking account our Preiser Rodriguez, 411 475, 500, 36 439, 93 1827 (1973), sole remedy federal seeking restoration habeas corpus, Balisok's did request lost credits. (As District noted, however, expressly reserved right seek appropriate forum. App. Pet. Cert. F-4.) 4 The Court, applying Heck, "would resulting sanctions." F-14. Rather than grant petitioners' motion dismiss, stayed pending filing resolution state-court It authorized immediate its ruling pursuant 28 1292(b), Circuit reversed, holding only always A-2. We granted certiorari. 517 , 116 1564, 134 664 (1996). 5 violations alleged are similar those Heck. There, allegations were conducted arbitrary investigation, knowingly destroyed exculpatory evidence, caused illegal voice identification procedure be plaintiff's criminal trial. 479. Here, principally petitioner Edwards, who officer proceeding, concealed witness statements refused ask specified questions witnesses, I-3 I-7, prevented from introducing extant material "intentionally denied" evidence defense, Brief 3. (Respondent also Edwards failed provide statement facts supporting finding against him, I-6 Wood erroneously as exceeding page limitation, id., I-7 I-8.) 6 There is, critical difference Heck: Respondent, complaint, limited depriving without undeservedly substantive matter. * That say, posited wrong, but result was. distinction between these two sorts claims clearly established law, entitlement recover least nominal proves former one proving latter one. See Carey Piphus, 435 247, 266-267, 55 252, 98 1042 (1978). view dispositive, following precedent effect A-2, citing Gotcher Wood, 66 F.3d 1097, 1099 (CA9 1995), cert. pending, 95-1385. 7 principle incorrect, since it disregards possibility, envisioned nature challenge could such judgment. possibility alluded very passage relied upon Appeals, distinguished earlier Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 41 935, 94 2963 (1974), follows:"In light language characterizing 'damages civil rights,' rather credits, we think recognized using wrong reaching (i.e., denying credits). Nor there indication reason believe, vitiated denial Thus, issue call into lawfulness continuing confinement." supra, 482-483 (emphasis added).The same point apparent Heck's summary holding: 8 "We hold that, order allegedly imprisonment, harm actions whose unlawfulness render invalid,6 must prove [overturned]." 486-487 footnote appended above-italicized clause gave concrete example does directly attributable confinement successful prosecution wrongful." Id., 486, n.6. thus incorrect asserting "for procedure, result," Gotcher, 1099, never subject limitation announced 9 principal defect complained would, established, first all, completely denied opportunity put defense through specifically identified witnesses possessed evidence. appears all testimony excluded. F-2 (District opinion) ("At infraction . ., [respondent] asked read record. According [respondent], replied no submitted behalf"). obvious defect, courts have reinstated (absent new hearing) when established. See, e.g., Kingsley Bureau Prisons, 937 F.2d 27, 31 (CA2 1991); Dumas State, 654 So. 48, 49 (Ala. Crim. 1994); Mahers 437 N.W.2d 565, 568-569 (Iowa 1989); re Contras, 199 A.D.2d 601, 602, 604 N.Y.S.2d 651, 652 (1993). Cf. Reismiller, 101 Wash. 291, 293-297, 678 P.2d 323, 325, 326 (1984); Burton, 80 573, 585, 910 1295, 1304 Respondent's claim, goes even further, exclusion deceit bias himself. contends lied about nonexistence statements, see I-4, I-6, I-7; 2-3; 4, A defendant tried partial judge entitled set aside, matter how strong him. Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 535, 71 749, 47 (1927); Arizona Fulminante, 499 279, 308, 113 302, 111 1246 (1991). requirements many respects less demanding prosecution, they so lax let stand decision biased dishonestly suppresses innocence. Wolff, 570-571. loss because follow "some evidence" standard, which, "if record support determination, then will undertake entire review uphold results." 7, Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution Walpole Hill, 472 445, 105 2768, 86 356 (1985); 21 (citing cases). points out, contains ample standard. may true, basis attacking insufficiency irrelevant. As Supreme explained: "The evidentiary satisfied 'some evidence' revoking good time credits." Johnston, 109 493, 497, 745 864, 867 (1987) added). Similarly, discussion Hill way abrogated enunciated simply addition requirements, revocation comport "'the minimum process,'" findings "supported some record." 454 (quoting 558). 11 conclude, therefore, respondent's money damages, based part decisionmaker punishment imposed, requests, prospective injunctive relief. alleges routinely fail date-stamp made cases involving "jail house attorneys" like himself, weaken due-process witnesses. I-4. requests requiring received. I-10. Ordinarily, prayer "necessarily imply" previous properly To prevail, course, establish standing, Lewis Casey, 518 2174, 135 606 (1996), meet usual relief, see, O'Shea Littleton, 414 488, 499, 502, 38 674, 669 (1974). Neither nor considered neither briefed here. leave consideration lower remand. 12 Since remanding, add word concerning Court's stay while sought dismiss it. once exhausted remedies, proceed. error. reemphasize judicially imposed exhaustion requirement, 481, 483; absent bar suit, either should immediately go forward, dismissed. 13 remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 14 ordered. 15 whom BREYER join, concurring. 16 I agree extent "based decisionmaker," ante, 6; allegations, explains, imposed," 7; 5-6. defects, including official "to specify what supported guilt." F-3 order); 564-565, (1974) (inmate subjected discipline written reasons on). order, unlike "deceit bias" alleged, 5, therefore understanding, join 17 -------------- Footnotes 18 ambiguous point, Appeals' interpretation, accepted 5.

Category: 1