Amaker v. Weiner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Heck barred conspiracy claims under § 1983 and § 1985(3) where “[e]ach of [the] plaintiff’s causes of action . . . turns on the asserted existence of a conspiracy to frame [the] plaintiff for murder”
• noting that the “conversion requirement helps ensure that courts will refrain from engaging in fact-finding when considering a motion to dismiss”
• holding that Heck applies to Section 1983 conspiracy
• holding that Heck applies to Section 1983 conspiracy
• attaching an attorney’s affidavit as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss did not require conversion
• explaining dismissal under Heck should be without prejudice and, if a plaintiff’s conviction or sentence is later declared invalid or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, he may reinstitute his suit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).