Court Opinion

ID: 9392033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 20:00:37.081769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.639315
License: Public Domain

In the

    United States Court of Appeals
                 For the Seventh Circuit
                     ____________________
No. 21-2697
JAMES COURTNEY,
                                                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                 v.

KIMBERLY BUTLER, et al.,
                                              Defendants-Appellees.
                     ____________________

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                     Southern District of Illinois.
     No. 3:16-cv-01062-NJR — Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Chief Judge.
                     ____________________

      ARGUED OCTOBER 26, 2022 — DECIDED MAY 3, 2023
                 ____________________

   Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.
    HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents a new ques-
tion on the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), which forecloses civil litigation
that would call into question the validity of a state criminal
conviction or sentence that has not been set aside. Heck ex-
tends to civil litigation that would call into question the valid-
ity of a parole revocation, at least when the revocation is
based on the parolee’s wrongdoing. Knowlin v. Thompson, 207
2                                                   No. 21-2697

F.3d 907, 909 (7th Cir. 2000). The new question here is whether
and how Heck applies when release on parole is denied based
not on the parolee’s actions but on state oﬃcials’ alleged fail-
ures to do their jobs.
    Plaintiﬀ James Courtney was sentenced to three years in
state prison followed by one year of “mandatory supervised
release,” the current name for parole in Illinois. But in a prac-
tice known as “violating at the door,” Courtney’s mandatory
supervised release was revoked before he ever left prison. The
stated reason was not that he had acted wrongly in some way
but that he had no arrangements for a place to live that state
oﬃcials deemed suitable. Courtney spent the one year of his
“mandatory supervised release” in prison.
    Courtney then brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against current and former administrators of the Illinois De-
partment of Corrections and the Menard Correctional Center.
He alleges that defendants failed to investigate living arrange-
ments that he proposed and ignored his grievances. He also
alleges that his mandatory supervised release was revoked
without evidence that he violated any terms of release and
without adequate procedural protections, all in violation of
his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed all of
Courtney’s claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. We aﬃrm
in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceed-
ings on Courtney’s claims that state oﬃcials failed to do their
jobs so that he could be paroled.
I. Factual and Procedural History
   We review dismissal of Courtney’s complaint de novo, ac-
cepting as true the facts alleged in his complaint and giving
him the beneﬁt of all reasonable inferences from those
No. 21-2697                                                     3

allegations. Knowlin, 207 F.3d at 907. Because Courtney ap-
peals from dismissal of his complaint, he may rely on docu-
ments outside his complaint to “elaborate on his factual alle-
gations so long as the new elaborations are consistent with the
pleadings.” Peterson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 986 F.3d
746, 752 n.2 (7th Cir. 2021), quoting Geinosky v. City of Chicago,
675 F.3d 743, 745 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012).
   A. Plaintiﬀ’s Delayed Release
   Courtney was sentenced to three years in prison and one
year of mandatory supervised release for having violated an
earlier term of parole by failing to register as a sex oﬀender.
Courtney was scheduled to be released on October 4, 2013, at
which point his term of mandatory supervised release was to
have begun.
    One condition for Courtney’s release was that he identify
a host site, approved by the Illinois Department of Correc-
tions, where he would reside during his term of release. See
20 Ill. Admin. Code § 1610.110(a) (an order for release on pa-
role is not eﬀective and the inmate shall not be released until
arrangements have been made for a “proper and approved
residence,” and the prison warden may hold the inmate until
arrangements are approved).
    The Illinois Department of Corrections Administrative Di-
rective 04.50.110 provides “written instructions to staﬀ re-
garding [their] responsibilities” in the host site approval pro-
cess. IDOC Administrative Directive 04.50.110 § II.A (eﬀective
Nov. 1, 2007). Approximately twelve months before an of-
fender’s projected mandatory supervised release date, a rep-
resentative from the department’s Field Service oﬃce “shall”
obtain from the inmate his release plan—i.e., where he plans
4                                                  No. 21-2697

to live upon release. § II.F.1(a). If the inmate does not have a
release plan, the Field Service representative “shall” help him
develop one. Id. The Field Service representative “shall” en-
sure that the release plan is entered into the Oﬀender Track-
ing System and a release packet is prepared. § II.F.1(b) & (c).
And the prison warden “shall ensure” that the Field Service
representative completes these steps. § II.F.1.
    The process for approving an inmate’s release plan varies
slightly depending upon the inmate’s parole category. For so-
called “S” Type or Special Parole oﬀenders like Courtney, the
Field Service representative submits the release packet to the
appropriate parole supervisor, who assigns the case to a pa-
role agent. IDOC Administrative Directive 04.50.110
§ II.H.3(a)(2). The parole agent is responsible for meeting pro-
spective hosts and conducting site investigations of the in-
mate’s proposed residence. § II.H.3(c)(2). Either the parole
agent or her supervisor enters the results of the investigation,
approving or rejecting the proposed residence, into the Of-
fender Tracking System. § II.H.3(c)(3) & (c)(4). The Field Ser-
vice representative receives daily notiﬁcations regarding host
site denials via the Oﬀender Tracking System. § II.H.3(a)(3). If
a proposed host site is denied, the Field Service representative
“shall” develop alternative release plans. Id. Meanwhile, the
parole agent “shall … [c]ontinue to develop, investigate, and
process alternative community host plans.” § II.H.3(c)(5). If no
alternative plan is developed, both the Field Service repre-
sentative and the parole agent “shall” contact the Placement
Resource Unit for assistance. § II.H.3(a)(3) & (c)(5).
    On August 29, 2012, more than a year before his scheduled
release, Courtney submitted two potential host sites to the
Field Service oﬃce for investigation. The ﬁrst was the home
No. 21-2697                                                   5

of a friend on Rhodes Street in Centralia, Illinois. The second
was a halfway house in East St. Louis that accepts sex oﬀend-
ers. In March or April 2013, Courtney sent a letter to the Field
Service oﬃce with another potential host site, a property
owned by the same friend, this one on Maple Street in Cen-
tralia. At some unknown time during his incarceration, Court-
ney sent another letter, this time saying that his release plan
was to live with the same friend at a house on Locust Street,
or, in the alternative, at the halfway house in East St. Louis.
Of all the host sites proposed by Courtney, only the Rhodes
Street address was submitted by the Field Service oﬃce for
investigation, and it was rejected by the parole oﬃce in Au-
gust 2013. No one at the Department of Corrections ever sub-
mitted Courtney for placement at the halfway house or re-
ferred him to the Placement Resource Unit for assistance.
    On October 4, 2013—the day Courtney was scheduled to
be released—a correctional oﬃcer came to his cell and told
him he had been “violated” and would not be leaving the
prison that day. The Department of Corrections determined
that Courtney had not identiﬁed a suitable host site, so a war-
rant—signed by defendant Godinez—was issued for his ar-
rest. Courtney’s parole violation report, dated October 6,
2013, recommended that he remain at the Menard prison until
appropriate housing was found. The report also directed that
Courtney be “referred to the Placement Resource Unit so ad-
equate housing may be located in as expeditious a manner as
possible.”
   More than a month later, at a revocation hearing on No-
vember 14, 2013, the Prisoner Review Board issued an order
formally revoking Courtney’s mandatory supervised release.
The Board’s order said that Courtney would be released
6                                                 No. 21-2697

“upon the approval of a viable host site as determined by
IDOC.” No suitable host site was ever approved, however, so
Courtney completed his entire one-year term of mandatory
supervised release in prison.
    Starting on October 4, 2013 and continuing through the
following months, Courtney ﬁled numerous grievances with
prison oﬃcials insisting that he had submitted suitable host
sites to the Field Service oﬃce and that his continued impris-
onment was unlawful. Several of his grievances went unan-
swered. One was denied on the false premise that the Field
Service oﬃce had submitted Courtney for placement at the
halfway house. On October 18, 2013, Courtney ﬁled a griev-
ance complaining that he was being kept in prison illegally
and that no one had investigated the host sites he had pro-
posed. In a report denying Courtney’s grievance, the griev-
ance oﬃcer asserted that the Field Service oﬃce had submit-
ted Courtney for possible placement at the halfway house on
November 8, 2013. As a designated witness for the Depart-
ment of Corrections conﬁrmed in her later deposition, that as-
sertion was simply false. Courtney unsuccessfully appealed
his grievance to defendant Harrington and then to defendant
Godinez.
   In the meantime, other Menard inmates whose release
dates were after Courtney’s and who were not sex oﬀenders
(and who therefore had fewer restrictions on where they
could live) were released to that same halfway house while
Courtney remained at Menard. After completing his one-year
term of mandatory supervised release in prison, Courtney
was released on October 3, 2014.
No. 21-2697                                                  7

   B. District Court Proceedings
    After his release, Courtney sued several Department of
Corrections oﬃcials for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In
his operative complaint, Courtney alleges that defendants
wrongfully prolonged his detention in violation of the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments. Speciﬁcally, he claims that de-
fendants ignored his communications regarding potential
host sites and took insuﬃcient action to ensure he was re-
leased on his scheduled date. Courtney also alleges that de-
fendants’ refusal to release him on his scheduled release date
because they anticipated he would violate conditions of his
supervised release—despite the fact that no such violation
had yet occurred—was unconstitutional. Courtney’s com-
plaint also accuses defendants of depriving him of his liberty
without due process in two main ways. First, he accuses de-
fendants of failing to carry out their duties when they ignored
multiple communications and grievances he sent regarding
potential host sites. Second, he asserts that his mandatory su-
pervised release was revoked without adequate procedural
protections, including notice and the opportunity to be heard.
    In their answer, defendants asserted several aﬃrmative
defenses, including qualiﬁed immunity, absolute immunity,
sovereign immunity, and statute of limitations. Three months
later, defendants sought leave to amend their answer to assert
as an additional aﬃrmative defense that Courtney’s claims
were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Under
Heck, a plaintiﬀ alleging that his state conviction or sentence
was unconstitutional may sue for damages under § 1983 only
if his conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, in-
validated, or called into question by a federal court’s writ of
habeas corpus. Id. at 486–87. If the plaintiﬀ’s conviction or
8                                                            No. 21-2697

sentence has not been set aside, then the district court must
dismiss his complaint if ﬁnding in his favor would “neces-
sarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Id.
at 487.
    Courtney opposed the defendants’ motion to amend, ar-
guing that Heck did not apply. His theory was and is that his
claim for wrongful detention past his scheduled release date
seeks to vindicate his underlying sentence, not attack it. The
magistrate judge assigned to the case agreed and denied de-
fendants’ motion to amend as futile. The defendants ﬁled a
motion for reconsideration and on the same day moved for
summary judgment.
    The case was then transferred to the assigned district
judge, who concluded that defendants should have been per-
mitted to amend their answer and that Heck barred all of
Courtney’s claims. The court ﬁrst rejected Courtney’s argu-
ment that he was not challenging his underlying sentence,
noting that supervised release was part of Courtney’s sen-
tence. The district court then considered whether judgment in
Courtney’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
sentence. It would, the court reasoned, because ﬁnding that
Courtney was wrongfully detained would mean the decision
to revoke his mandatory supervised release was invalid. Con-
cluding that Heck applied, the court dismissed Courtney’s
claims without prejudice. 1

    1 In Heck, the Supreme Court wrote that where the doctrine applies,
the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the conviction or sentence has been
reversed or set aside. 512 U.S. at 486–87 (“plaintiff must prove….”). The
procedural status of Heck has divided the circuits. Is the favorable-termi-
nation requirement jurisdictional, is it an affirmative defense that must be
pled in an answer on pain of waiver, and may a case dismissed without
No. 21-2697                                                                    9

II. Analysis
    In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiﬀ alleging
that his conviction or sentence was unconstitutional does not
state a claim under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence
has been set aside. 512 U.S. at 487. Heck’s favorable-termina-
tion requirement is “rooted in pragmatic concerns with avoid-
ing parallel criminal and civil litigation over the same subject
matter and the related possibility of conﬂicting civil and crim-
inal judgments.” McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149, 2157
(2019). Consequently, if a judgment in plaintiﬀ’s favor would
not imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, then
Heck does not apply: the plaintiﬀ’s claim is cognizable under
§ 1983 even if his conviction or sentence has not been invali-
dated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.
    “Heck uses the word ‘sentence’ to refer … to substantive
determinations as to the length of conﬁnement.” Wilkinson v.
Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 83 (2005). Heck’s favorable-termination re-
quirement thus extends to claims that a plaintiﬀ’s good-time
credit, parole, or supervised release was improperly revoked.
Such claims would, if successful, necessarily challenge the du-
ration of a plaintiﬀ’s conﬁnement. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.

prejudice on Heck grounds count as a “strike” under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act? See Garrett v. Murphy, 17 F.4th 419, 425–28 (3d Cir. 2021) (sur-
veying circuits and holding Heck requirement is non-jurisdictional ele-
ment of claim and that dismissal on Heck grounds may count as a strike
for failure to state a claim). The Seventh Circuit has been in the non-juris-
dictional affirmative-defense camp, with the strike question addressed in
non-precedential orders. See Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 837–38 (7th Cir.
2011) (not jurisdictional); Carr v. O’Leary, 167 F.3d 1124, 1126 (7th Cir. 1999)
(affirmative defense). In light of the circuit split, district courts may find it
prudent as a matter of case management to determine earlier rather than
later whether a defendant will raise the issue.
10                                                 No. 21-2697

641, 646 (1997) (loss of prison good-time credits); Knowlin, 207
F.3d at 909 (parole revocation); Antonelli v. Foster, 104 F.3d
899, 901 (7th Cir. 1997) (Heck applies to suits “premised … on
the invalidity of conﬁnement pursuant to some legal process”
including parole revocation).
    Courtney’s claims do not challenge his original conviction
or sentence. Defendants contend instead that Heck bars his
claims because a judgment in his favor would necessarily im-
ply that the Prisoner Review Board’s November 14, 2013 or-
der revoking his mandatory supervised release was invalid,
and that order has not been set aside. To determine whether
Heck bars Courtney’s claims, we evaluate each in turn.
     A. Whether Release Was Revoked Without Due Process of Law
    Courtney alleges that the process leading to revocation of
his supervised release was procedurally deﬁcient, depriving
him of his liberty without due process of law. Speciﬁcally,
Courtney claims he was not given notice or the opportunity
to be heard before he was denied release and that he was not
given notice or a chance to be heard at the Prisoner Review
Board hearing. He also complains that he was denied the op-
portunity to procure witnesses or to obtain counsel before the
Board’s hearing and that the Board’s hearing was not held
“within a constitutionally permissible time” after his release
was denied.
    This claim is barred by Heck. The alleged procedural de-
fects would, if proven, imply that the Board’s revocation of
Courtney’s supervised release was improper. See Edwards,
520 U.S. at 646 (applying Heck to bar plaintiﬀ’s claim that
prison disciplinary hearing in which plaintiﬀ’s good-time
credits were revoked was procedurally deﬁcient). Before
No. 21-2697                                                  11

Courtney can bring such a claim, he must show that the order
revoking his supervised release has been set aside in some
fashion, and that has not happened.
   B. Whether Release Was Revoked Without Evidence of a Viola-
      tion
    Next, we address Courtney’s claim that defendants antic-
ipatorily revoked his mandatory supervised release without
evidence that he had actually violated any of its terms, in vi-
olation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Courtney claims that because he was “violated at the door,”
he never lived at a host site that violated his supervised re-
lease conditions, so the revocation of his supervised release
was unconstitutional.
    This claim is also barred by Heck. A judgment in Court-
ney’s favor would necessarily imply that the revocation of his
supervised release was unjustiﬁed and invalid. See Wilkinson,
544 U.S. at 81–82 (Heck bars § 1983 claims “absent prior inval-
idation” if success “would necessarily demonstrate the inva-
lidity of conﬁnement or its duration.”).
   C. Whether Defendants Intentionally or Recklessly Failed to
      Eﬀect Courtney’s Release
    Last, we address Courtney’s primary claim, taking at face
value his factual allegations: that at least some defendants de-
liberately or recklessly failed to eﬀect his release on or after
October 4, 2013. Courtney alleges that, prior to his scheduled
release date, defendants failed to investigate three of the host
sites he identiﬁed, including the halfway house in East St.
Louis. Then, after he was deemed in violation of his condi-
tions on October 4, 2013, Courtney alleges, defendants ig-
nored his communications and grievances complaining that
12                                                   No. 21-2697

he was being wrongfully detained and imploring defendants
to release him to the host sites he had previously identiﬁed.
Courtney alleges that defendants’ actions resulted in longer
imprisonment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments.
   The inquiry under Heck is whether Courtney’s claims
would necessarily invalidate the Board’s order. We analyze
separately his allegations regarding defendants’ conduct be-
fore and after the Board revoked his supervised release.
       1. Defendants’ Conduct After November 14, 2013
    Courtney’s claims regarding defendants’ behavior after
November 14, 2013 are not barred by Heck. The Board revoked
Courtney’s supervised release after it determined that he had
not identiﬁed an approved host site. Courtney’s claims that
defendants, after November 14, 2013, deliberately or reck-
lessly ignored his grievances and communications regarding
possible host sites, if substantiated, would not necessarily im-
ply that the Board’s decision to revoke his supervised release
on November 14, 2013 was invalid.
    In Gilbert v. Cook, 512 F.3d 899, 901 (7th Cir. 2008), we held
that Heck did not bar a prisoner from suing for alleged viola-
tions of his constitutional rights that occurred after events that
were the subject of prison discipline. In Gilbert, a prison disci-
plinary board determined that a prisoner had thrown a punch
in a ﬁght with guards, and the board revoked a year of his
good-time credit. Id. at 900. While Heck barred claims that
would challenge the board’s ﬁnding, it did not bar the pris-
oner’s claim that guards dislocated his shoulder in retaliation
after his own punch. Id. at 901. We explained that Heck and
No. 21-2697                                                   13

Edwards “do not aﬀect litigation about what happens after the
[adjudicated oﬀense] is completed.” Id.
    The same reasoning applies here, and with even more
force because Courtney did not act or fail to act—in any way
he could control—to violate the terms of his scheduled re-
lease. Courtney alleges that after the Board entered its order
revoking his supervised release, defendants deprived him of
liberty by deliberately or recklessly failing to carry out their
duties to respond to his grievances, to investigate his pro-
posed host sites, and, if necessary, to assist him in ﬁnding a
suitable site. He may bring that claim without undermining
the Board’s November 14, 2013 ﬁnding that he lacked an ap-
proved host site as of that time. In fact, far from attacking the
Board’s order, Courtney seeks to vindicate it. The order in-
structed that Courtney should be released “upon the approval
of a viable host site as determined by IDOC.” Heck does not
bar these claims.
       2. Defendants’ Conduct Before November 14, 2013
    We also ﬁnd that Heck does not bar Courtney’s claims that
defendants deliberately or recklessly failed to investigate po-
tential host sites or to respond to his grievances before No-
vember 14, 2013. As noted above, the Board found that Court-
ney did not have an approved residence, as is required for
mandatory supervised release. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code
§ 1610.110(a)(1) (providing that a “proper and approved resi-
dence” is a condition for release on parole). Courtney does not
challenge the Board’s ﬁnding. He agrees that the Department
of Corrections never approved a host site for him. His claim
is that defendants prolonged his imprisonment by deliber-
ately or recklessly failing to act. Three host sites he submitted
were never investigated, nor did the department ﬁnd or even
14                                                              No. 21-2697

propose any alternatives. As a result, no host site was ap-
proved, and he remained in prison for another year.
    Defendants cite several cases, all non-precedential or oth-
erwise non-binding, in which Heck barred claims by plaintiﬀs
alleging that their parole was wrongly revoked. In those
cases, parole was revoked because the relevant decision-mak-
ing body determined that the parolee acted or failed to act in
some manner that violated conditions of his parole. 2
    This case is diﬀerent. Though the Board’s order was styled
as a “violation,” the order did not revoke Courtney’s super-
vised release because he engaged in any act of his own voli-
tion that violated terms of his mandatory supervised release.
As Courtney himself stresses, he never lived at a location that
violated the conditions of his release. Rather, his mandatory
supervised release was revoked because an item on his release
checklist was unchecked: he had no approved host site.
    That Courtney’s “violation” is poorly named is evident
from the order itself. It distinguishes between violating the
terms of supervised release and lacking an approved host site.
The order is a standard form giving the Board four options.
The Board may ﬁnd (1) that the oﬀender is not a violator,
(2) that the oﬀender is a violator, (3) that the oﬀender is to be
released “upon the approval of a viable host site as deter-
mined by IDOC,” or (4) that the hearing is continued. If the
oﬀender is found to be a “violator,” then the Board must

     2E.g., Hadley v. Quinn, 524 F. App’x 290, 291 (7th Cir. 2013) (parole
revoked after plaintiff left state without permission, in violation of parole
conditions); Easterling v. Siarnicki, 435 F. App’x 524, 525 (7th Cir. 2011) (su-
pervised release revoked after plaintiff refused to comply with require-
ment that he wear an ankle monitor and reside in transitional housing).
No. 21-2697                                                   15

select from several rationales: that he committed a criminal
oﬀense, violated a condition of his release agreement or spe-
cial order, absconded, or failed to report. The only box
checked on the order revoking Courtney’s supervised release
is the one indicating that his release would be eﬀective upon
the Department of Corrections’ approval of a host site.
    Because his release was contingent on the Department of
Corrections approving a host site, the Board’s order was, at
bottom, based not on a ﬁnding that Courtney had done any-
thing wrong but on a ﬁnding that defendants in the Depart-
ment had not done something: approved a host site for Court-
ney. The Board did not ﬁnd that the host sites Courtney sub-
mitted were not suitable. That would be a diﬀerent case. Here,
the Board simply found that no host site had been approved,
a task that, as the Department’s Administrative Directive
04.50.110 makes clear, Courtney was utterly incapable of
achieving by himself. He needed defendants to act, and he al-
leges they deliberately or recklessly failed to do so.
    We acknowledge, of course, that the failure of oﬃcials to
comply with departmental regulations or even state law does
not necessarily violate the Constitution. E.g., Thompson v. City
of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444, 454 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Estate of
Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 746 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Section
1983 protects against ‘constitutional violations, not violations
of … departmental regulation and … practices ….’”), quoting
Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003). By discuss-
ing defendants’ alleged failures to comply with Administra-
tive Directive 04.50.110, we do not mean to imply that viola-
tions of the Directive are suﬃcient to establish a constitutional
violation. They are not.
16                                                  No. 21-2697

    Rather, the Directive is relevant to Courtney’s claims inso-
far as it identiﬁes the respective responsibilities of the inmate
and the Department of Corrections to identify, investigate,
and approve host sites. And while violations of state law or
policy do not per se violate the Constitution, when those vio-
lations result in unjustiﬁed deprivations of liberty, the Consti-
tution is implicated. For example, in Armstrong v. Squadrito,
152 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 1998), the plaintiﬀ had been held in jail
without a hearing for 57 days without appearing before a
judge, contrary to state law and standard operating proce-
dures. We reversed summary judgment for defendants and
denied qualiﬁed immunity. We noted: “While the Constitu-
tion does not mandate the speciﬁc procedures accorded by In-
diana, neither does it tolerate the absence, following arrest, of
any procedure whatsoever.” Id. at 575–76. In addition, in a
case like this where many oﬃcials may have played a role in
causing or failing to remedy Courtney’s prolonged imprison-
ment, state law or policy may help sort out questions of indi-
vidual responsibility that can be so critical under § 1983.
    Another way to frame the Heck issue on these claims is to
observe that if Courtney had sought relief while in custody,
these claims would be understood best as calling for a writ of
mandamus—ordering correction oﬃcials to ﬁnd a suitable
residence during supervised release—not a writ of habeas
corpus. Courtney claims he was wrongfully imprisoned, but
he traces his wrongful imprisonment to the defendants’ fail-
ure to perform their duties, not to a legal inﬁrmity in the
Board’s decision ordering his continued conﬁnement. If
Courtney can prove that defendants deliberately or recklessly
failed to investigate host sites and to respond to his griev-
ances, that proof would not imply that the Board acted im-
properly when it revoked his mandatory supervised release.
No. 21-2697                                                 17

The Board based its decision upon a ﬁnding that the Depart-
ment of Corrections had not approved a host site. Courtney’s
allegations are entirely consistent with that ﬁnding. Accord-
ingly, Courtney’s claims, if successful, would not “necessarily
demonstrate the invalidity of conﬁnement or its duration.”
Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82.
    Accordingly, Heck poses no bar to Courtney’s claims that
at least some defendants deliberately or recklessly acted or
failed to act in ways that caused him to spend an extra year in
prison rather than on mandatory supervised release. The dis-
trict court’s dismissal of Courtney’s challenges to the Board’s
November 14, 2013 order revoking his mandatory supervised
release is AFFIRMED, but the dismissal of his other claims is
REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceed-
ings consistent with this opinion.
18                                                  No. 21-2697

   BRENNAN, Circuit Judge, concurring. I join the majority
opinion, and I write separately as to why I understand Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994), does not bar one of Court-
ney’s claims.
    Under Heck doctrine, “a § 1983 suit for damages that
would ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of the fact of an in-
mate’s conviction, or ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of the
length of an inmate’s sentence, is not cognizable under § 1983
unless and until the inmate obtains favorable termination”
through a state or federal challenge to his conviction or sen-
tence. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (quoting
Heck, 512 U.S. at 487). As the majority’s opinion points out, the
Heck bar extends to litigation that calls into question the va-
lidity of parole revocation decisions. Knowlin v. Thompson, 207
F.3d 907, 909 (7th Cir. 2000).
    The Illinois Prisoner Review Board, which is independent
of the Department of Corrections, 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/3-3-
1(a), revoked Courtney’s Mandatory Supervised Release
(MSR) because he lacked an approved host site at which to
live during the term of his release. Nothing suggests the
Board’s revocation decision has been vacated, reversed, or
otherwise impugned. So, Heck prohibits Courtney from bring-
ing a § 1983 claim that would, if successful, necessarily imply
that the Court’s revocation decision is invalid. Heck, 512 U.S.
at 486. I agree with my colleagues that the success of two of
Courtney’s claims—those alleging the revocation decision
was made without due process and without evidence of a vi-
olation—would necessarily imply that his parole revocation
was invalid, and thus that dismissal of those claims was
proper.
No. 21-2697                                                   19

    The harder question concerns Courtney’s claim that de-
fendants’ deliberate indiﬀerence caused him to be imprisoned
for longer than he should have been. Success on this assertion
implicates the duration of Courtney’s incarceration, as Court-
ney must demonstrate that absent defendants’ deliberate in-
diﬀerence, he would have been released sooner. That brings
his third claim very close to the Heck bar. Nelson, 541 U.S. at
646–47. If Courtney prevails, it suggests a certain unfairness
to his parole revocation. And this court has previously ap-
plied the Heck bar where a successful § 1983 claim “would cast
a shadow over the conviction.” Hill v. Murphy, 785 F.3d 242,
248 (7th Cir. 2015).
    Still, I agree with my colleagues that Courtney’s third
claim should proceed, but for slightly diﬀerent reasons. As
noted, the key question under Heck is “whether a judgment in
favor of the plaintiﬀ would necessarily imply the invalidity of
his conviction or sentence.” 512 U.S. at 487. If it would, and
the imprisonment is intact, the claim must be dismissed. Id.
Our precedent guides this inquiry. When deciding whether
the Heck bar applies, we “must analyze the relationship be-
tween the plaintiﬀ’s § 1983 claim and the charge on which he
was convicted.” Hardrick v. City of Bolingbrook, 522 F.3d 758,
762 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting VanGilder v. Baker, 435 F.3d 689,
691 (7th Cir. 2006)). This requires careful consideration of
what a successful § 1983 suit would necessarily imply, be-
cause “Heck forbids a prisoner in his civil rights case to chal-
lenge a ﬁnding in his criminal or prison-discipline case that
was essential to the decision in that case.” Moore v. Mahone,
652 F.3d 722, 723 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). So, for ex-
ample, this court has held that a § 1983 claim alleging police
used excessive force during an arrest does not necessarily
20                                                   No. 21-2697

imply the invalidity of a conviction for resisting that same ar-
rest. Evans v. Poskon, 603 F.3d 362, 364 (7th Cir. 2010).
    Courtney’s third claim survives this analysis. A judgment
in his favor means he should have been released sooner, but
it does not necessarily imply the invalidity of his revocation.
Comparing a putative judgment in Courtney’s favor with the
Board’s revocation decision shows this. The Board revoked
Courtney’s MSR because he lacked an approved host site. But
a win for Courtney on his § 1983 claim does not necessarily
imply the invalidity of his revocation. If Courtney prevails, it
means the defendants’ deliberate indiﬀerence prevented him
from obtaining an approved host site and leaving prison on
his MSR date. Yet it also conﬁrms the ground for the Board’s
revocation—that Courtney lacked an approved site. In other
words, a judgment for Courtney on his § 1983 claim means
the Board’s revocation was proper, but that defendants’ un-
constitutional conduct still caused him to stay in prison longer
than he otherwise might have. Courtney’s third claim thus
falls short of necessarily implying the invalidity of his parole
revocation.
    Heck often plainly bars § 1983 claims bearing on a prison
board’s parole revocation decision. See, e.g., Knowlin, 207 F.3d
at 909; Barker v. Reagle, No. 22-2572, 2023 WL 2931290, at *1–2
(7th Cir. April 13, 2023); Easterling v. Siarnicki, 435 Fed. App’x
524, 526 (7th Cir. 2011). But in this speciﬁc circumstance, I
agree the Heck bar does not apply to Courtney’s third claim
that defendants intentionally or recklessly failed to eﬀect his
release.