Court Opinion

ID: 9911702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 18:00:57.505033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:49.355217
License: Public Domain

In the

    United States Court of Appeals
                 For the Seventh Circuit
                     ____________________
No. 23-1757
TIMOTHY BELL,
                                                  Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                 v.

KWAME RAOUL AND GLENN J. ALEXANDER,
                                  Defendants-Appellees.
                     ____________________

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the
           Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
          No. 1:22-cv-06780 — Thomas M. Durkin, Judge.
                     ____________________

 SUBMITTED OCTOBER 24, 2023 — DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 2023
                ____________________

   Before HAMILTON, SCUDDER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM. After serving a sentence for sexual assault,
Timothy Bell remained incarcerated in an Illinois prison for
over 16 years under the state’s Sexually Violent Persons Com-
mitment Act. In 2022, Bell invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sued
two state officials, alleging that the duration of his civil com-
mitment exceeded that permitted by the Act. The district
court concluded that the Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in
Heck v. Humphrey barred Bell’s claims. We agree and affirm.
2                                                    No. 23-1757

                                I
   A jury civilly committed Bell after he served just under
half of an eight-year criminal sentence imposed in 2002 fol-
lowing a conviction for sexual assault. Twenty years later, Bell
petitioned the state court for release under the procedures
enumerated in the Sexually Violent Persons Act (often short-
handed as the SVPCA), insisting that the statute capped the
duration of his civil commitment at 15 years. The state disa-
greed and continued Bell’s detention as a sexually violent per-
son. Over his years of civil commitment, Bell also brought
multiple petitions for habeas corpus relief in federal court,
none of which succeeded.
    In 2022, Bell turned to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sued the Illinois
Attorney General and the assistant attorney general who con-
ducted the commitment proceedings, contending that they
had violated his constitutional rights by detaining him with-
out a basis in Illinois’s law. Bell sought not only money dam-
ages from both officials, but also injunctive relief terminating
his participation in the state’s civil commitment program.
   Adhering to the screening obligations imposed by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court concluded that Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), barred Bell’s claim. The district
court therefore dismissed the complaint, entered judgment,
and later denied Bell’s motion for reconsideration.
    Bell now appeals, primarily challenging the applicability
of Heck to his claim. He has also submitted a renewed motion
for the appointment of counsel, using that filing to inform us
he has been released from civil detention to home confine-
ment.
No. 23-1757                                                    3

                               II
    We have no published decisions in which we have applied
the Heck doctrine to civil detainees such as those incarcerated
in Illinois as sexually violent persons, though we have done
so a handful of times in nonprecedential dispositions. See, e.g.,
Henderson v. Bryant, 606 F. App’x 301, 304 (7th Cir. 2015). To-
day, in accordance with every other circuit that has consid-
ered this issue, we too apply Heck to those civilly confined un-
der the Illinois SVPCA and similar statutes. Like a prisoner
wishing to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence, a civil
detainee cannot sue a state official under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violating his constitutional rights when a judgment in the
plaintiff’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
confinement, unless the grounds for the confinement have al-
ready been set aside in other proceedings.
                               A
    In Heck, the Supreme Court held that § 1983 cannot be
used to contest the fact or duration of confinement, whether
directly or by implication, unless the conviction or discipli-
nary sanction that led to the confinement is invalidated on ap-
peal, through a collateral attack, or by executive pardon or
clemency. See 512 U.S. at 486–87. In this way, Heck imposed a
favorable-termination requirement. See id. at 484. Our cases
are clear that the requirement applies regardless of whether
the plaintiff seeks damages or injunctive relief: “If the claim
has not accrued, it cannot matter what relief a prisoner seeks.”
Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026, 1028 (7th Cir. 2016) (ap-
plying Heck and rejecting the argument that waiving any re-
lief but damages allows a § 1983 claim to proceed).
4                                                   No. 23-1757

    To be sure, Heck did not announce a jurisdictional rule, but
instead more of an affirmative defense that can be waived by
an opposing party or sidestepped by a district court if it
wishes to reach the merits of a claim. Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d
834, 837–38 (7th Cir. 2011) (reaching the merits of a § 1983
claim despite recognizing that it was barred by Heck); Carr v.
O’Leary, 167 F.3d 1124, 1126 (7th Cir. 1999) (concluding that
the state had waived a Heck defense by failing to assert it).
    Heck identified multiple policy concerns underpinning its
favorable-termination requirement. Among other reasons,
the requirement aims to foreclose (or at least limit) the possi-
bility of parallel litigation in state and federal courts by pre-
serving habeas corpus as the sole remedy for state prisoners
wishing to challenge a conviction or sentence. See Heck, 512
U.S. at 484. In more recent years, the Supreme Court has reit-
erated these concerns, emphasizing that § 1983 should not be
used to pursue collateral attacks on state court criminal judg-
ments, undermine the finality of those judgments, or circum-
vent the limitations on post-conviction relief Congress in-
cluded within 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) and accompanying provi-
sions. See McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149, 2157 (2019).
                               B
    By no means are we alone in holding that Heck’s reasoning
applies to challenges to state-law based civil commitments
like the one imposed on Timothy Bell. Indeed, if we consider
unpublished decisions, five circuits have reached that exact
conclusion. See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1140–
41 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying Heck to California’s Sexually Vio-
lent Predators Act to preserve habeas corpus as the sole rem-
edy for persons in custody); Thomas v. Eschen, 928 F.3d 709,
711 (8th Cir. 2019) (applying Heck for similar reasons); Banda
No. 23-1757                                                     5

v. New Jersey, 134 F. App’x 529, 530 (3d Cir. 2005) (same);
Whitehead v. Bush, 62 F. App’x 912, 913 (10th Cir. 2003) (same);
Fetzer v. Secretary, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. 20-
11139-E, 2020 WL 5625172 at *1 (11th Cir. Aug. 13, 2020)
(same). Our research shows no circuit adopting a contrary
position.
    Bell’s § 1983 claim squarely challenges the validity of his
continued civil commitment pursuant to Illinois law. His
complaint seeks money damages and an injunction, yet enti-
tlement to either remedy would necessarily require him to
prove in the first instance the illegality of his civil commit-
ment. Therein lies the Heck barrier: Bell cannot use § 1983 to
pursue those remedies unless and until he succeeds through
a different outlet in favorably terminating or otherwise show-
ing the invalidity of his civil commitment under the SVPCA.
    The principles underpinning Heck are front and center in
these circumstances. Recall that Bell has already attempted to
challenge his ongoing civil commitment through multiple ha-
beas petitions filed in federal court. See, e.g., Bell v. Donovan,
No. 22-CV-4135 (N.D. Ill. 2022). None has succeeded. A par-
allel civil suit would trigger the same considerations and con-
cerns that Heck sought to avoid, including respect for federal-
state comity and the preservation of habeas corpus as the sole
avenue of relief for a state prisoner seeking post-conviction
relief. Those concerns ring true regardless of whether the in-
dividual claiming relief under § 1983 is civilly committed or
criminally imprisoned. We see no way to avoid the conclusion
that Heck applies to Bell’s claim.
    Nor does it matter that Bell is no longer confined within
the Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility. He remains
in the state’s SVPCA program despite recently being released
6                                                   No. 23-1757

to home confinement—a form of state custody. See 725 ILCS
207/40(b)(4) (2014) (“An order for conditional release places
the person in the custody and control of the [Human Services]
Department.”). His release from Rushville does not modify
our conclusion or otherwise moot the issue presented by
Bell’s appeal. See United States v. Trotter, 270 F.3d 1150,
1152–53 (7th Cir. 2001) (concluding that an appeal of a sen-
tence was still live even though the defendant had been re-
leased from prison and was serving supervised release).
    Indeed, our conclusion extends further. The Heck bar ap-
plies after a detainee’s release until the judgment that caused
the detention is invalidated. See Savory v. Cannon, 947 F.3d
409, 419 (7th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (holding that a defendant’s
§ 1983 claim accrued only when he obtained a pardon, not
when he was released from prison). Bell must therefore wait
until he receives a favorable termination of his civil commit-
ment before seeking relief under § 1983 for his allegedly
excessively long confinement.
                               C
        Do not read us to be saying that Timothy Bell has no
way to challenge the length of his civil commitment or the
way the state is running its program. Illinois law offers outlets
for those who have been civilly committed, as the Fourteenth
Amendment requires. See Howe v. Hughes, 74 F.4th 849, 852
(7th Cir. 2023) (acknowledging that civil confinement consti-
tutes a significant restriction of liberty and thus committed in-
dividuals require due process protections). Under state law,
officials must periodically reexamine Bell to determine his
continued eligibility for civil commitment. See 725 ILCS
207/55; Gilbert v. McCulloch, 776 F.3d 487, 497 n.5 (7th Cir.
2015). Bell has a state-law right to counsel at these revaluation
No. 23-1757                                                      7

proceedings, and so too are avenues available for him to chal-
lenge adverse determinations. First, the Secretary of the De-
partment of Human Services can determine that the commit-
ted person is no longer sexually violent and is thus authorized
to petition for discharge. 725 ILCS 207/65; In re Detention of
Samuelson, 727 N.E.2d 228, 233–34 (Ill. 2000). Second, the com-
mitted person can petition for discharge at one of the statuto-
rily mandated periodic hearings, over the Secretary’s objec-
tion. Id. Third, the committed person can petition for dis-
charge outside of the periodic reviews without approval of
the Secretary. Id. If the state circuit court rejects the petition,
the petitioner can appeal, potentially all the way to the state
Supreme Court. See In re Detention of Hardin, 932 N.E.2d 1016,
1020 (Ill. 2010).
    Bell has taken advantage of these state-law avenues for re-
lief several times, but each time has failed to appeal adverse
rulings. If he did bring his claim through the state’s full ap-
peal process, he would have exhausted state remedies and
could      then    attempt      to  pursue       relief   under
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Those appeals would be sufficient
to give the state courts adequate chances to hear his claim
first, and so he would not be required to first apply for a writ
of habeas corpus from state courts as well. See O’Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).
    Alternatively, Bell may be able to use the Illinois habeas
statute for relief. This statute permits filing an application for
a writ of habeas corpus where, as here, the applicant alleges
being held in custody for longer than is legally permitted. See
735 ILCS 5/10-123(2); Barney v. Prisoner Review Bd., 184 Ill.2d
428, 431 (1998). We express no opinion on Bell’s chances of
8                                                 No. 23-1757

success in using these alternate remedies. Our only point is to
observe their existence.
  For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg-
ment dismissing Bell’s § 1983 claim and DENY his renewed
motion for recruitment of counsel.