Opinion ID: 3021704
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cook’s Convictions

Text: We first address whether Heck prevents Cook from asserting his civil rights claims. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a litigant cannot proceed under § 1983 if success on his claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the fact or duration of his conviction or sentence. 512 U.S. at 481. The Court more recently clarified this position by stating that state prisoners must “use only habeas corpus remedies . . . when they seek to invalidate . . . their confinement–either directly through an injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State’s custody.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 1247 (2005). Cook’s first conviction has never been reversed, vacated, or called into question. A holding by this Court declaring that the jury was purposefully improperly empaneled 1 To the extent the Appellants seek review over the denial of their motion to amend the complaint to add William Basemore as a Plaintiff and their motion for class certification, the appeal with respect to these issues is meritless as well. First, Basemore never submitted any indication of his intent to join as a Plaintiff. Second, a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 will not stand where the proposed representative parties are dismissed. 4 would call into question the validity of Cook’s conviction. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 100 (requiring reversal where a Batson violation exists). The District Court correctly found that Cook’s claims with respect to his first conviction are barred. For similar reasons, Cook’s claims with respect to his second conviction are also barred. The only notable distinction between his first and second conviction is that because Cook was resentenced on the latter, he may have the ability to raise his claims on direct appeal, thereby potentially receiving the relief to which he believes he is entitled. This possibility does not alter the conclusion that, at this stage, the conviction has not been invalidated.