Olivier v. City of Brandon
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)
Facts
- 17 Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar not law
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.
- 17 Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar not law
The next month, Olivier pleaded no contest in municipal court.
- 17 Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar not law
In other words, the relief requested is only prospective; Olivier seeks neither the reversal of, nor compensation for, his prior conviction.
- 17 Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar not law
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.
- 17 Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar not law
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.
- 17 Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar not law
So the Heck bar does not come into play.
- 17 Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar not law
We have to agree that if Olivier succeeds in this suit, it would mean his prior conviction was unconstitutional.