Does a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 wrongful conviction claim for unconstitutionally withholding exculpatory evidence accrue when a conviction is invalidated or when a conviction is invalidated and the plaintiff is no longer subject to criminal prosecution due to a favorable termination?

QUESTION PRESENTED The accrual of a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a constitutional violation for withholding exculpatory evidence as recognized by Brady _v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) is governed by this Court’s decision Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, this Court held that a cause of action for an “unconstitutional conviction” “accrues” when the “outstanding judgment” has been “invalidated” by being “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” 512 U.S. at 486-487 & 489-90. Based on Heck, Courts are split on whether the statute of limitations for a § 1983 wrongful conviction claim based on a Brady and other like violations commences to run after only an “invalidation” or after both an “invalidation” and a “favorable termination.” The Sixth Circuit, in this case, provided that the statute of limitations for Jordan’s commenced after both an “invalidation” and a “favorable termination.” The Question Presented is: Does a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 wrongful conviction claim for unconstitutionally withholding exculpatory evidence “accrue” and thus the statute of limitations commence to run when (1) a conviction is “invalidated” by the post-conviction procedures set out in Heck or when (2) a conviction is “invalidated” and the plaintiff is no longer subject to criminal prosecution due to a “favorable termination?”