Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)

E403305

United States Supreme Court case federal civil rights case

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that limits when prisoners can seek damages under § 1983 by holding that such claims are barred if success would necessarily imply the invalidity of an outstanding criminal conviction or sentence unless that conviction has been overturned.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (1)

Label	Occurrences
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) canonical	2

Statements (47)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ federal civil rights case ⓘ
appliesTo	federal prisoners ⓘ state prisoners ⓘ
areaOfLaw	civil rights law ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ federal courts ⓘ habeas corpus ⓘ
arguedDate	November 3, 1993 ⓘ
citation	512 U.S. 477 ⓘ
citationStyle	Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) self-linksurface differs ⓘ
concurrenceBy	David H. Souter ⓘ Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ
country	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decidedDate	June 24, 1994 ⓘ
decisionDate	1994 ⓘ
docketNumber	93-6188 ⓘ
effect	channels challenges to the validity of convictions primarily into habeas corpus proceedings ⓘ limits use of § 1983 to collaterally attack criminal convictions ⓘ
holding	A state prisoner cannot recover damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a federal habeas writ. ⓘ A § 1983 claim for damages that would necessarily imply the invalidity of an outstanding criminal conviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States federal law ⓘ
legalDoctrine	Heck ⓘ surface form: Heck bar favorable termination requirement for § 1983 damages actions challenging convictions ⓘ
legalProvisionInvolved	28 U.S.C. § 2254 ⓘ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ⓘ
legalRule	Known as the Heck bar, § 1983 damages actions are barred if success would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence that has not been set aside. ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Antonin Scalia ⓘ
overruledBy	none ⓘ
page	477 ⓘ
petitioner	Roy Heck ⓘ
precedentFor	Edwards v. Balisok ⓘ McDonough v. Smith ⓘ Wallace v. Kato ⓘ Wilkinson v. Dotson ⓘ
relatedConcept	42 U.S.C. § 1983 damages actions ⓘ habeas corpus as exclusive remedy for challenges to fact or duration of confinement ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
respondent	Humphrey ⓘ
status	good law as of 2024 ⓘ
volume	512 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.

Instruction

You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10.

# Requirements
- If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list.
- If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list.
- Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf".
- Do not get too wordy.
- Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.

Input

Subject: Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)
Description of subject: Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that limits when prisoners can seek damages under § 1983 by holding that such claims are barred if success would necessarily imply the invalidity of an outstanding criminal conviction or sentence unless that conviction has been overturned.

Referenced by (2)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 → interpretedBy → Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) ⓘ

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) → citationStyle → Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) self-linksurface differs ⓘ

subject surface form: Heck v. Humphrey