Source: cases/42usc1983/cl-10811625-olivier-v-city-of-brandon.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/clus/volume_cl/10811625/index.html
Heck prohibits the use of §1983 to challenge the validity of a prior conviction or sentence so as to obtain release from custody or monetary damages.
Given that Olivier asked for only a forward-looking remedy—an injunction stopping officials from enforcing the city ordinance in the future—his suit can proceed, notwith- standing his prior conviction.
So the Heck bar does not come into play.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash1 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /cl/10811625 name Olivier v. City of Brandon cite 607 U.S. ___ (2026) court Supreme Court of the United States date 2026-03-20 url catalog/cases/clus/volume_cl/10811625/index.html source ir/caselaw/clus_cl.jsonl sha1=48e5c69d2f7c3371bd516bf6a99403315febe18f chars=33900 opinion maj : majority by Kagan @9371..33900 controlling party city : City of Brandon and its police chief (defendants asserting the Heck bar) party olivier : Gabriel Olivier, street preacher previously convicted under the ordinance count fa : First Amendment challenge to the protest-area ordinance, declaratory and injunctive relief only theory prospective : a suit for purely prospective relief against future enforcement is not a collateral attack on the prior conviction law 42usc1983 role applied posture civil; street preacher who had pleaded no contest to violating a city protest-area ordinance sued the City and its police chief under § 1983 for a declaration and an injunction against future enforcement (First Amendment); district court and CA5 held the suit barred by Heck v. Humphrey; certiorari granted; reversed and remanded result remanded defense x-habeas-exhaustion : not-satisfied [law] route heck-bar pattern plaintiff earlier convicted under the challenged ordinance (no-contest plea, fine, probation) sues only to enjoin its future enforcement party city count fa theory prospective fact @11575..11637 [supports] | The next month, Olivier pleaded no contest in municipal court. fact @12665..12805 [cuts-against] | In other words, the relief requested is only prospective; Olivier seeks neither the reversal of, nor compensation for, his prior conviction. fact @12806..12986 [cuts-against] | And Olivier has since made clear that he has no interest in using a favorable judgment in this suit to later get his rec- ord expunged or avoid his conviction’s collateral effects. fact @28992..29104 [supports] | We have to agree that if Olivier succeeds in this suit, it would mean his prior conviction was unconstitutional. rule @10178..10327 | Heck prohibits the use of §1983 to challenge the validity of a prior conviction or sentence so as to obtain release from custody or monetary damages. held @17507..17708 | Given that Olivier asked for only a forward-looking remedy—an injunction stopping officials from enforcing the city ordinance in the future—his suit can proceed, notwith- standing his prior conviction. held @27702..27742 | So the Heck bar does not come into play. gloss Heck v. Humphrey does not bar a § 1983 action seeking purely prospective relief against future enforcement of an ordinance, even though success would imply that the plaintiff's prior conviction under it was unconstitutional. gloss The Court proceeds on the forfeited assumption that Olivier was never in custody (n. 2) and reserves whether such a suit lies while the plaintiff is in custody for violating the challenged law (n. 3); it does not reach Olivier's separate no-custody argument. element deprivation.first-amendment : not-reached party olivier count fa gloss First Amendment merits not addressed; the case is remanded after reversal of the Heck dismissal.