Whether Heck v. Humphrey bars a civil rights suit against officials who corruptly concealed evidence until time for appeal expired

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Court held that in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a Section 1983 plaintiff must first prove that the conviction or sentence has been vacated. But what happens when law enforcement officials and other conspirators corruptly and , intentionally conceal evidence that would invalidate a conviction until the time has run out for appellate or post-conviction relief? The courts below held that under Heck, Petitioner cannot recover damages or get declaratory relief against officials and conspirators who destroyed DNA evidence, withheld exculpatory evidence, used false evidence, secretly planted a relative of the hypnotist on the jury, lied to all three levels of the federal court, and laughed that they “got away with” wrongfully convicting Petitioner. The lower court also held that the statute of limitations ran out on the Fourth Amendment and Section 1986 claims while the litigation was pending. Last term, Neal Katyal petitioned the Court in Kimberlin v. DOJ, No 22-124, to allow a writ of error coram nobis to vacate his conviction in light of these grave constitutional errors discovered 40 years after ' Petitioner’s conviction, but the Court denied certiorari : on January 9, 2023 thereby ensuring that Petitioner could not vacate his conviction and leaving only the civil rights suit to recover damages for the official corruption. “i On April 19, 2028, the day after the Seventh Circuit affirmed the instant case, this Court decided Reed v. Goertz,__U.S.__ (2023), holding that the ‘statute of limitations begins at the end of litigation not during it, thereby allowing Reed to file 21983 action challenging the state’s application of a DNA statute without first vacating Reed’s conviction. The questions presented are: I Whether this case should be remanded for . consideration in light of Reed v. Goertz, : __U.S.__ (April 19, 2023) to consider 1) Petitioner’s 1983 action challenging the Government’s misapplication of DNA statutes and microscopic hair policies, and 2) the lower court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment and Section 1985(2)/1986 claims on statute of . __ limitations grounds. Il. Whether Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) can bar Petitioner’s civil suit (1) against actors who corruptly and intentionally concealed evidence that : undermined the validity of Petitioner’s conviction until the time had passed for appellate and post-conviction relief, and (2) where Petitioner’s claims did not implicate the invalidity of his conviction and occurred before and after his trial.