Opinion ID: 197522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cognizability of the 1983 Action

Text: White's 1983 action is not cognizable.2 Although neither party addressed the issue, [i]t is too elementary to warrant citation of authority that a court has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into its subject matter jurisdiction, and to proceed no further if such jurisdiction is wanting. 2. Black's Law Dictionary defines the term cognizable to mean, Capable of being tried or examined before a designated tribunal; within jurisdiction of court or power given to court to adjudicate controversy. Black's Law Dictionary 259 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis added). See also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476 (1994) (stating that this is what cognizable ordinarily means). -7- 7 In re Recticel Foam Corp., 859 F.2d 1000, 1002 (1st Cir. 1988). In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court held: [I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254. Id. at 487 (footnote omitted). The Court ruled that habeas corpus was the only permitted mode of federal collateral attack on a state conviction. Id. at 481-82. The Court analogized 1983 actions seeking damages for alleged constitutional violations related to a state criminal conviction to common law malicious prosecution claims, for which termination of the prior criminal proceeding in the accused's favor is an essential element. Id. at 484-86. A 1983 suit like the present, contending that a state parole revocation was constitutionally invalid, challenges the fact or duration of [the plaintiff's] confinement. Id. at 481; accord Crow v. Penry, 102 F.3d 1086, 1087 (10th Cir. 1996); Littles v. Board of Pardons & Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995) -8- 8