Seventh Circuit: Heck Bars Civil Rights Challenges to Civil Commitment

Source: prisonlegalnews.org 6/1/24

On December 20, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that an Illinois prisoner’s challenge to civil commitment as a sexually violent person after release cannot be raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unless the underlying civil commitment is first terminated in his favor or shown to be invalid “through another outlet.” The ruling extended application of the principal laid out in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), that a civil rights challenge to prison disciplinary action is barred whenever a favorable ruling for the prisoner would necessarily imply that it was invalid.

After serving his eight-year Illinois state sentence for sexual assault, Timothy Bell was civilly committed under the state’s Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (SVPCA), 725 ILCS §§ 207/1 – 207/99. Pursuant to that law, he remained incarcerated in an Illinois prison for another 16 years.

Bell filed a pro se federal civil rights action against state Attorney General Kwame Raouo (D) and the assistant attorney general who conducted his commitment proceedings. Proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he challenged his continued incarceration for exceeding an alleged 15-year statutory cap. But during screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b), the district court concluded that Heck barred the claim. Bell appealed.

The Seventh Circuit began by noting that Bell had been released from detention to home confinement during the pendency of his appeal. But it held that the change in Bell’s status did not affect his suit, since he “remains in the state’s SVPCA program despite being recently released to home confinement,” which the Court called “a form of state custody” per 725 ILCS 207/40(b)(4).

Agreeing then with the district court, the Seventh Circuit held that Heck applied, barring Bell’s claim. The Court noted that…

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

One of the great legal errors of our time, allowing years-long “civil commitment.”

But must exhaust Syate options before he can pursue Federal ones, and how long will that take? How many more years will be have to rot in the State Shadow Prison system before he can get to SCoIL? A court that recently upheld the concept of the State’s “Right to Speculate”?

This is the same court that overturned a previous SCoIL ruling regarding the Illinois State Residency Restrictions abomination. The ruling the previous court made based on scientifically compiled evidence regarding the lack of need and efficacy of the abomination. Turns out the current SCoIL feels the State’s “Right to Speculate” also includes the “Right to Banish” unfavorable Scientific Evidence into meaninglessness, by speculating that it isn’t accurate.

As such, the State of IL now has Judicial Approval to establish their speculations as fact, by decree. Not just regular facts, but Universal and Eternal, Unquestionable Facts, a right usually reserved exclusively for Omniscient Deities, especially when the fact is a definition of the nature of Man, and their future behaviors.

“It’s fact because we say it is fact, and it applies to everyone, and that can never change under any circumstances, ever, and no evidence can ever disprove this. As a result, here’s a Statement of Fact about what this person will do at some point in the future.

This is a statement of infinite truth, with no possibility of error, of any kind, ever.”

These recent decisions are telling?

* Nothing ever has to be proven, because nothing has to be real!
* No evidence can disprove anything, because nothing has to be real!
* Doesn’t matter if the Residency Restrictions aren’t necessary or effective, because nothing has to be real! 
* Nothing matters, because nothing has to be real!

The some court’s are no longer able to maintain a large, and convincing enough Illusion of Legitimacy to cover all State Pogrom expansions, so they are just quietly admitting that nothing has to be real? Quietly admitting the State is entitled to do as it pleases, because it pleases?

Not a full abandonment of the Illusion of Legitimacy, F&H is still the official State Lie of justification, just not trying to hide everything behind it anymore? So long as they maintain the F&H Illusion, no other Illusion is needed? That justifies everything as a State Entitlement?