No. 20-1351

Phillip W. Hurd, et al. v. Joy Laskar

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2021-03-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: 42-usc-1983 civil-rights due-process favorable-termination heck-doctrine heck-v-humphrey legal-termination malicious-prosecution section-1983 termination-of-prosecution
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity FourthAmendment
Latest Conference: 2022-04-14 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a plaintiff alleging malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must show that the broader prosecution against him was terminated in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence, or merely that the termination was not inconsistent with innocence

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED A plaintiff alleging malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must show that the broader prosecution against him was terminated in his favor. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483, 484, 487 (1994). The question presented is whether a plaintiff satisfies the requirement by showing that his prosecution has “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence,” as seven circuits require, or merely that the termination was “not inconsistent with innocence,” as the Eleventh Circuit held below.

Docket Entries

2022-04-18
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2022.
2021-05-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/27/2021.
2021-04-21
Response to petition from respondent Joy Laskar, Ph.D. filed.
2021-03-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 26, 2021)

Attorneys

Joy Laskar, Ph.D.
Michael Alan DaileyAnderson Dailey LLP, Respondent
Phillip A. Hurd, et al.
Stephen John Petrany — Petitioner