Syllabus | Opinion [ Scalia ] | Concurrence [ Souter ] | Concurrence [ Ginsburg ] | Dissent [ Stevens ] |
---|---|---|---|---|
HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version |
Ginsburg, J., concurring
RANDY G. SPENCER, PETITIONER v. MIKE KEMNA, SUPERINTENDENT, WESTERN MISSOURI CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[March 3, 1998]
Justice Ginsburg, concurring.
The Court held in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), that a state prisoner may not maintain an action under 42 U.S. C. §1983 if the direct or indirect effect of granting relief would be to invalidate the state sentence he is serving. I joined the Courts opinion in Heck. Mindful of real-life example[s], among them this case, cf. id., at 490, n. 10, I have come to agree with Justice Souters reasoning: Individuals without recourse to the habeas statute because they are not in custody (people merely fined or whose sentences have been fully served, for example) fit within §1983s broad reach. See id., at 503 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment); cf. Henslee v. Union Planters Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 335 U.S. 595, 600 (1949) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting) (Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.). On that understanding of the state of the law, I join both the Courts opinion and Justice Souters concurring opinion in this case.