Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 4 (2004) (per curiam)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

752

MUHAMMAD v. CLOSE

Per Curiam

preserve the habeas exhaustion rule and no impediment under Heck in such a case, of which this is an example.2

II

A

This suit grew out of a confrontation between petitioner, Muhammad, an inmate, and the respondent Michigan prison official, Close. App. 70. According to his amended complaint, Muhammad was eating breakfast when he saw Close "staring at him through the hallway window." Id., at 71. Eventually Muhammad stared back, provoking Close to assume "a fighting stance" and "com[e] into the dining area at a fast pace with his face contorted." Ibid. Muhammad stood up and faced him, and when the two were within a foot of one another, Close asked, "whats [sic] up," all the while "staring angerly [sic]." In the aftermath of the confrontation, Muhammad was handcuffed, taken to a detention cell, and charged with violating the prison rule prohibiting "Threatening Behavior." (Emphasis deleted.) 3 Under the rules, special detention was required prior to a hearing on the charge, which occurred six days later. Muhammad was acquitted of threatening behavior, but found guilty of the lesser infraction of insolence, for which prehearing detention would not have been mandatory.4 Ibid. Muhammad was

restraints" might have a habeas claim independent of 1983, and the contention is not raised by the State here.

2 Members of the Court have expressed the view that unavailability of habeas for other reasons may also dispense with the Heck requirement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 491 (1994) (Souter, J., concurring in judgment); Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U. S. 1, 21-22 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., concurring). This case is no occasion to settle the issue.

3 The Michigan Department of Corrections Policy Directive, No. 03.03.105 (June 6, 1994) (Directive), defines "Threatening Behavior" as "Words, actions or other behavior which expresses a[n] intent to injure or physically abuse another person." App. 40 (emphasis deleted).

4 The Directive defines "Insolence" as "Words, actions, or other behavior which is intended to harass, or cause alarm in an employee." Id., at 44 (emphasis deleted).

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007