Opinion ID: 624219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Heck-Barred Bivens Claim

Text: The district court did not err in dismissing Plotkin’s Bivens claims arising out of his criminal convictions as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). Under Heck, a prisoner may not bring a non-habeas civil action challenging 4 the constitutionality of officials’ action if a judgment in the prisoner’s favor “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” unless the prisoner shows that his conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S. Ct. at 2372; see Abella v. Rubino, 63 F.3d 1063, 1065 (11th Cir. 1995) (concluding that Heck applies to Bivens actions by federal prisoners). Therefore, a plaintiff’s damages claim alleging that the defendants unconstitutionally conspired to falsely convict him is not ripe and must be dismissed unless the conviction has been invalidated. Abella, 63 F.3d at 1065. Plotkin does not contend that his underlying convictions for filing false tax returns have been invalidated. Thus, to the extent Count One of Plotkin’s complaint rests on the contention that the defendants conspired to secure those convictions, the district court properly dismissed it as Heck-barred.