Opinion ID: 4346792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Blimline’s Claim is Heck-Barred

Text: A plaintiff in a civil rights action under § 1983 may not recover damages for an “allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” unless he proves “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.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486– 87 (internal footnote omitted). Heck applies equally to civil rights actions against federal officials under Bivens. Stephenson, 28 F.3d at 27 & n.1. In Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011), the Supreme Court held that a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in his § 1983 suit for an order requiring DNA testing “would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction” because the results might prove inconclusive, exculpatory, or might further incriminate the prisoner. Id. at 533–34 (internal quotation marks omitted, alterations, and citation omitted). Heck supports Blimline’s position. It is true that a plaintiff’s unlawful search and seizure claim undermines the validity of a conviction. Thus, it is Heck-barred if evidence that was a direct or indirect product of the alleged 4 Case: 16-10067 Document: 00514746043 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/03/2018 No. 16-10067 unlawful search and seizure was presented in the plaintiff’s criminal conviction proceeding. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7; see also Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1995) (in the context of an allegedly unlawful arrest). If, however, the illegally obtained evidence is admissible under the independent source or inevitable discovery doctrine, or if the evidence’s admission is deemed harmless, Blimline’s claims would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his convictions. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7. A Fourth Amendment claim may survive if it alleges some damage other than the conviction and sentence. See id. Blimline requested “a full accounting of [his] property, money damages for loss of property, compensation for damages and loss of assets,” for the SEC and FBI’s allegedly warrantless search of his office and seizure of his property, the failure to provide him with an accounting of the assets seized, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The record is not sufficiently developed to determine whether any illegally obtained evidence was admissible under the independent source or inevitable discovery doctrine or whether the admission of the evidence was harmless. Plus, Blimline has alleged damages other than his conviction and sentence. By failing to brief the Heck issue, the Government has provided no insight here. On this record (and keeping in mind what Blimline must demonstrate in the district court to survive summary dismissal), the district court erred by dismissing Blimline’s Bivens suit based on Heck. See Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555; In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d at 205. Perhaps, upon further development of the record, the district court could determine that the suit is Heck-barred. But for now, the record is not sufficiently developed to affirm the summary dismissal on that basis. 5 Case: 16-10067 Document: 00514746043 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/03/2018 No. 16-10067