Whether the Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) requirement for state prisoners to exhaust the state court remedy when applying to a section 1983 state court under the 14th Amendment's due process clause underlying Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58 (1987) renders Heck, Ritchie, section 1983, and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment all both unenforceable and unconstitutional since both Heck and Ritchie requires the exhaustion of state court remedy

No question identified. : vt Tons presente LT. WHEéTHER THe HECK Vv. HumpaRed 51a US. 477 466-97 0994) ReQuiRimeT For ___ STATE PA'Soneas TD EXHAUST THE STATE Covey Rimeny Wien APpiisy TOA Secon _ Fite s i STATE Covet untae THe (49 Aminioments DVEPROCESS Clauss UNDERL¥ING Pond stil vANia Vi RITCHIE 460 U.S. 34, 58 (487) posoees HECK, RITEHIE SECTION 1493, Ano THE DUG PHOLESS CLAVSE oF THE 144th AMiOMENT ALL BOTH _VNGNFORLEABLE AnD UNCONSTITVIIONAL SINCE BOTH HECK AND RITEMIE ReQiecs _ THE SHHausTion OF STE CoveT Remepd —_IE,__wiemicg THe Heck v. HumePtesd, 51a US. 477, 406-87 (1994) ReQviemenT Foe __ STATE PASoNERs To 2XHAusT Tre STATE CouRT Remepy Wited APPLISY TOASECTION _ FILES in’ Staae Covet Unper THE 14% AmenomenTS Due PROCESS CLavSs UND LYING Penn stivania ve Reteins 440 U.S, 34, 56 (1937) RaNDERS MUHAMMAD Vp CLOSé, 540 ViS. 744, 754-55 (A004) BOTA VNENFORCLABLE AND UNCON_ ST IVTONAL SINCE THE MUHAMMAD CovgT HELD THAT HECK DONT APPLY _ CHarLendess Tar don'T Have A BEARING ON Conviction oR Séltewce 2 TIL, witeTHiR STATS PRISONERS PROCEDVRAL DUS PROLESS CLAIM For ACCESS TD __£vIDENCE VIR Stree CouRT REMEDY 1S A COBNIZACLE § 1983 CLAM _ UNDER THE 1444 AminnmenTS DUS PROCESS CLAVSE UNDERINING PENNSYLVANIA vy, RITHIZ 400 v,S, 34 58(1 491) WHid STATE emPLo4ees ___DEPRIVE STATE PRISONeRS OF THEIR RIGAT To PROCEDVRAL Dus PROCESS ___OF AN In Camepn DiSCLoSies OF CONFIDsstAt RITE FILES 2