We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
HECK V. HUMPHREY EXTENDS FTCS DEADLINE
The 1994 Supreme Court decision in Heck v. Humphrey held that a prisoner cannot sue civilly for an unconstitutional conviction or sentence until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated by a criminal court. It’s always been a bludgeon for inmate pro se litigators. However, a 4th Circuit case decided last week suggests that Heck applies expansively to prison discipline and that it can be a double-edged sword.
While doing federal time in 2017, Donte Parrish sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that he was wrongfully charged with a Prohibited Act and placed in segregated confinement for the killing of another inmate. He sat in the SHU (Special Housing Unit, known as “The Hole”) for several years while the FBI investigated, before deciding not to pursue it. Afterward, the BOP found Donte committed a different offense he had never been charged with.
When an appeal finally sent the case back to the DHO, a new officer conducted a fresh hearing on the two charges in the original 2009 incident report. On January 25, 2017, the new DHO found that “no prohibited act was committed” and expunged the incident report. By then, Donte had spent about eight years in the SHU.
An FTCA suit has to be brought within six months of denial of the inmate’s administrative claim. Donte’s claim was denied October 7, 2016, meaning that he had to sue by April 7, 2017. He did not file until a month later than that, May 3, 2017.
The Circuit held that Donte’s tort claims were governed by Heck v. Humphrey. Thus, Donte’s did not accrue until January 25, 2017, at the earliest, when the record for the charges against him was expunged. Thus, the 4th ruled, Donte’s complaint filed in May 2017 was within the six-month statute of limitations set forth in 28 USC § 2401(b) and was therefore timely.
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 US 477 (1994)
Parrish v. United States, Case No 20-1766, 2026 U.S.App. LEXIS 31678 (4th Cir. October 19, 2026)
‘HE SAID, SHE SAID’ IN 2255 MOTIONS REQUIRE HEARINGS
Patrick Anderson pleaded guilty to a methamphetamine and fentanyl trafficking offense, and waived his right to appeal. Later, he filed a pro se motion under 28 USC 2255, claiming that his lawyer was ineffective because he failed to file an appeal after Pat told him to do so.
The district court directed Pat’s trial attorney to file a declaration addressing Pat’s accusations. His lawyer denied everything.
The district court then denied Pat’s habeas corpus motion brought under 28 USC § 2255 without a hearing. The judge found that trial counsel’s affidavit “thoroughly contradicted” any claim that Pat directed his counsel to appeal. And because “both parties… already submitted… their respective versions of the events in question,” the district court ruled that “bringing them back into court to give testimony that will almost certainly parrot their briefing seem[ed] to be an unwarranted waste of judicial resources.” The district court thus held that it could “conclusively determine Anderson’s credibility: without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Last week, the 9th Circuit reversed.
The 9th held that, faced with conflicting sworn statements from Pat and his trial counsel on a dispositive issue, the district court should have held a hearing to assess each person’s credibility, and abused its discretion by failing to do so before denying Pat’s motion. Disagreeing with the government’s argument that this is a rare case in which credibility can be “conclusively decided” without a hearing, the panel wrote that Pat’s allegations are not “so far outside the bounds of reason” that they are “impossible to believe.”
The panel ruled, “At bottom, when faced with two conflicting statements—one from Anderson claiming he told his trial counsel to appeal, and one from trial counsel claiming otherwise—the district court could not conclusively credit trial counsel’s version without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing.”
This is the kind of thing that happens too often in § 2255 hearings. The Supreme Court ruled almost 65 years ago in Machibroda v. United States that 2255 movants’ plausible claims weren’t to be disbelieved without a hearing, but that holding is pretty much honored in the breach. It is heartening for an appeals court to remind trial courts that prisoners aren’t to be automatically disbelieved because they’re prisoners and lawyers aren’t to be automatically believed just because they’re lawyers.
United States v. Anderson, Case No 24-2385, 2026 U.S.App. LEXIS 31696 (9th Cir. October 19, 2026)
Machibroda v. United States, 368 US 487 (1962)
~ Thomas L. Root