Years after Erma Wilson was convicted and served an eight-year suspended sentence, Midland County, Texas, revealed that a member of the team that prosecuted Ms. Wilson was simultaneously employed by the judge who presided over her criminal trial – a blatantly unconstitutional dual employment.
Because her sentence had long expired, Ms. Wilson couldn’t challenge her unconstitutional conviction through federal habeas relief, so she sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil rights law that promises a federal cause of action to any person deprived of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”
The district court denied Ms. Wilson’s lawsuit a path forward, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heck v. Humphry decision. That decision requires somebody convicted of a crime to get the conviction invalidated in state court or through federal habeas relief before accessing § 1983. The Supreme Court made that decision so that people wishing to challenge their convictions wouldn’t be able to circumvent the many restrictions on federal habeas review by going straight to § 1983. But people like Ms. Wilson — whose sentence had expired by the time she discovered the unconstitutional basis of her conviction — never had any access to habeas, and so there is nothing to circumvent.
Several circuits have held that plaintiffs in Ms. Wilson’s situation may proceed with their lawsuit under § 1983. In an amicus brief, the MacArthur Justice Center urged the Fifth Circuit to join them.