Whether the court below erroneously held that the favorable termination rule applies even if an individual is no longer incarcerated, and therefore ineligible for habeas relief

QUESTION PRESENTED 7 ' This Court held in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 US. ; ; 477 (1994) that an individual cannot bring a § 1983 ; / claim based on “actions whose unlawfulness would render a [prior] conviction or sentence invalid” unless ; he can “prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed” or otherwise invalidated. In Spencer v. : Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) five justices endorsed in dictum the view that Heck does not bar an individual : not “in custody,” and therefore ineligible for habeas ; relief, from seeking damages under § 1983. The question presented is: Whether the court below erroneously held, in conflict with the decisions of seven other circuits, that the favorable termination rule applies even if an individual is no longer incarcerated, and therefore | ineligible for habeas relief.