Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Muhammad v. Close

Docket No.: 02-9065
Certiorari Granted: Jun 16 2003
Argued: December 1, 2003
Decided: February 25, 2004

Topics:

Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983), Civil Rights, Civil Rights Acts, Liability, Civil Rights Act, Equal Protection Clause, Establishment Clause, First Amendment, Free Exercise, Freedom of Religion, Medicare, Section 1983, habeas, habeas corpus, probable cause, public schools, retaliation

PartyNames: Shakur Muhammad, aka John E. Mease v. Mark Close
Petitioner: Shakur Muhammad, aka John E. Mease
Respondent: Mark Close

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Citation: CA 6, No. 02-1043, 9/23/02 unpublished. QUESTIONS PRESENTED: I. Is the appellate court's holding contrary to rules promulgated by thiscourt pursuant to title 28 U.S.C. §2072 , specifically Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15(A); II. Is the application of the "favorable-termination requirement" of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) as applied in Huey v. Stine , 230 F3d 226 (6th Circ., 2000) the correct standard for analyzing 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims by prisoners that are no longer "in custody" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §2254habeas corpus relief or does this court's holding in Spencer v. Kemna , 523
Supreme Court Docket

Shakur Muhammad, aka John E. Mease
v.
Mark Close
540 U.S. 749 (2004)
Background:

: I. Is the appellate court's holding contrary to rules promulgated by thiscourt pursuant to title 28 U.S.C. §2072 , specifically Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15(A); II. Is the application of the "favorable-termination requirement" of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) as applied in Huey v. Stine , 230 F3d 226 (6th Circ., 2000) the correct standard for analyzing 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims by prisoners that are no longer "in custody" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §2254habeas corpus relief or does this court's holding in Spencer v. Kemna , 523 U.S. 1, (1998) state another precedent, and how does either doctrine apply to this case; and,III. Did the appellate court err in affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in this case? CERT. GRANTED: 6/16/03 Limited to the following questions:

Consideration Limited:

Limited to the following questions: 1. Whether a plaintiff who wishes to bring a Sec. 1983 suit challenging onlythe conditions, rather than the fact or duration, of his confinement, must satisfy the favorable termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey. 2. Whether a prison inmate who has been, but is no longer, in administrative segregation may bring a Sec. 1983 suit challenging the conditions of his confinement (i.e. his prior placement in administrative segregation) without first satisfying the favorable termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey.

Question Presented:

1. Whether a plaintiff who wishes to bring a Sec. 1983 suit challenging onlythe conditions, rather than the fact or duration, of his confinement, must satisfy the favorable termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey. 2. Whether a prison inmate who has been, but is no longer, in administrative segregation may bring a Sec. 1983 suit challenging the conditions of his confinement (i.e. his prior placement in administrative segregation) without first satisfying the favorable termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey.

Question:

Does the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey (1994) require that prisoners who challenge prison disciplinary proceedings - but whose suits do not question their sentences' validity - first successfully challenge their sentences?

Note:

. . 02-1043, 9/23/02 unpublished.

Muhammad v. Close
ORAL ARGUMENT

December 1, 2003

Holding: reversed and remanded
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Close, 0 vote(s) against
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By: Per Curiam

Muhammad v. Close
Case Documents

1Slip Opinion in Muhammad v. Close
2Opinion in Muhammad v. Close
Additional documents for this case are pending review.