Muhammad v. Close

1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. CA6: Ptf’s guilty plea after losing suppression motion wasn’t collateral estoppel to § 1983 and Heck not implicated

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallNovember 5, 2017

    As a result, Wiggins’s challenge to the constitutionality of the body-cavity search does not “require him to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction” and does not run afoul of Heck. Id.; see also Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (per curiam) (holding that if a plaintiff raises a claim on which habeas relief could not have been granted, Heck does not bar the claim); Butler v. Compton, 482 F.3d 1277, 1280-81 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Mr. Butler’s § 1983 action seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on conduct that occurred during an arrest by Officer Compton that resulted in two burglary charges. Mr. Butler was not convicted on those charges because they were dismissed as part of a plea agreement.