“Temporal-and-Conceptual Distinctness” after Clark v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections:
A Refined Heck Bar for Section 1983 Excessive-Force Claims Arising from Prison Disciplinary Convictions

Introduction

In Clark v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections, No. 24-30201 (5th Cir. 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit revisited the often-disputed interface between federal civil-rights litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Supreme Court’s “favorable-termination” rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The appellant, inmate Torriana Clark, alleged that prison officer Lance Wallace used excessive force after Clark collapsed from dizziness. The district court found Clark’s § 1983 claim barred by Heck because Clark had pleaded guilty in a disciplinary proceeding that revoked good-time credits for “defiance” and “aggravated disobedience” arising out of the same incident. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, clarifying (1) the evidentiary burden a prisoner bears to demonstrate that his excessive-force claim is “temporally and conceptually distinct” from the conduct punished in prison discipline, and (2) the standard for denying leave to amend where a claim is Heck-barred.

The decision is noteworthy because it sharpens Fifth Circuit doctrine on when the loss of good-time credits transforms a prison disciplinary case into the kind of “sentence” or “duration-of-confinement” matter squarely within Heck, and because it stresses that the inmate—not the defendant—carries the burden of proving non-overlap between the force used and the conduct sanctioned. As such, the case incrementally but meaningfully elevates the pleading and evidentiary hurdles for prisoners seeking damages for excessive force when a disciplinary conviction for resistance or disobedience already stands.

Summary of the Judgment

• Partial Summary Judgment Affirmed. The Fifth Circuit agreed that Clark’s § 1983 excessive-force claim is barred by Heck because success on that claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his prison disciplinary conviction that resulted in the loss of good-time credits.
• Leave to Amend Properly Denied. The appellate court held that amendment would be futile as no alternative factual narrative could avoid the Heck bar given the video evidence and Clark’s prior guilty plea.
• Qualified Immunity Issue Moot. Because the suit was dismissed on jurisdictional/pleading grounds, the panel found Clark’s appeal of the district court’s scheduling decision on qualified immunity moot—though it reminded district courts to address immunity “at the earliest possible stage.”

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The panel wove a tapestry of Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedents:

1. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) – announced the “favorable-termination” rule.
2. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) – clarified Heck does not apply when success would not impact the validity or duration of confinement.
3. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) – substantive standard for Eighth-Amendment excessive force.
4. Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2008) – introduced the “temporal and conceptual distinctness” test.
5. Aucoin v. Cupil, 958 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2020); Santos v. White, 18 F.4th 472 (5th Cir. 2021); Gray v. White, 18 F.4th 463 (5th Cir. 2021) – recent iterations explaining how prison loss-of-good-time disciplinary findings trigger Heck.
6. Hoog-Watson v. Guadalupe County, 591 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2009) – burden of proof lies on the § 1983 plaintiff to show Heck does not apply.
7. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) – summary-judgment standards.

Collectively, these cases formed the analytical scaffold for the court’s reasoning—especially the notion that where proven misconduct (e.g., resisting orders) is part of the “same transaction” as the alleged excessive force, success on an Eighth-Amendment claim would necessarily negate elements underlying the disciplinary conviction.

Legal Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit’s logic unfolds in five steps:

1. Identify the Potential Heck Trigger. Clark’s guilty plea to “defiance” and “aggravated disobedience” resulted in a loss of good-time credits, which—unlike a mere loss of commissary privileges—directly affects sentence duration and thus falls under Heck.
2. Allocate the Burden. Because favorable termination is an element of Clark’s civil claim, he must show that a judgment in his favor would not imply invalidity of the disciplinary conviction.
3. Apply “Temporal and Conceptual Distinctness.” The court scrutinized whether the facts needed to prove excessive force are “inherently inconsistent” with the facts of the disciplinary plea. Clark alleged he “did nothing wrong and was not resisting,” which squarely contradicts his plea of guilty to resistance-based offenses.
4. Reject the “Two-Incident” Argument. Clark argued that the Nichols disciplinary report (with good-time loss) covered earlier conduct, while Wallace’s subsequent force constituted a separate episode. However, video evidence showed overlap: at least some of Wallace’s force was contemporaneous with Clark’s admitted resistance. Therefore, success on Clark’s claim would negate the factual premise of his conviction.
5. Amendment Futility. Even if Clark amended to mirror the video footage, the contradiction would persist; thus, amendment would be futile. Rule 15(a)(2)’s liberal standard yields where futility is clear.

Impact of the Decision

• Elevated Evidentiary Threshold for Inmate Plaintiffs. Prisoners must now marshal concrete, segregable facts (often video or eyewitness evidence) demonstrating a clean temporal break between the force used and the conduct punished with a good-time-credit loss.
• Unified-Incident Presumption. By regarding overlapping reports as one continuous event absent strong contrary evidence, the Fifth Circuit implicitly adopted a “unified-incident” presumption for Heck analysis in prison excessive-force suits.
• Strategic Drafting Guidance. Plaintiffs’ counsel must plead with particularity the sequence of events and explicitly concede any misconduct that was the basis of discipline, then carve out a separate window of allegedly gratuitous force. Vague “I did nothing” narratives will likely doom future cases.
• District-Court Case Management. The panel’s footnote exhorting early qualified-immunity determinations signals that trial courts should address immunity concurrently with Heck to avoid unnecessary discovery.
• Broader Civil-Rights Litigation. Outside the prison context, the opinion reinforces that plaintiffs who have accepted convictions (or guilty pleas) arising from the same factual matrix face a steep climb in pursuing damages unless post-conviction relief has first been obtained.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 1983

A federal statute allowing individuals to sue state actors who, “under color of” state law, violate constitutional rights. Damages are the usual remedy, but liability is subject to numerous doctrines limiting such suits.

Excessive Force under the Eighth Amendment

For prisoners, any force “maliciously and sadistically” intended to cause harm—rather than a good-faith effort to restore discipline—violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.

The Heck Doctrine

Named after Heck v. Humphrey, it bars a § 1983 action if success would necessarily question the validity of an existing conviction or sentence, unless that conviction has been overturned or otherwise invalidated.

Loss of Good-Time Credits

Credits that shorten an inmate’s term for good behavior. When revoked, the inmate’s sentence is lengthened, making the disciplinary decision part of the “duration of confinement.” That is why Heck applies.

Temporal and Conceptual Distinctness Test

A Fifth-Circuit gloss asking whether the facts required to prove the civil claim are clearly separate in time and concept from the facts that underlie the conviction. If not, the Heck bar applies.

Summary Judgment Burden-Shifting

Once the movant identifies a lack of evidence, the non-movant must bring forth specific facts (not mere allegations) showing a genuine controversy requiring trial. Unsupported assertions “will not suffice.”

Futility of Amendment

Courts may deny leave to amend if, even as amended, the complaint would still be dismissed—e.g., because a legal bar (Heck) remains insurmountable.

Conclusion

Clark v. DPS&C does not announce a sweeping new doctrine but refines how Heck operates when a prisoner simultaneously faces force by officers and discipline for resistance. By stressing the inmate’s burden to differentiate the two event streams, the Fifth Circuit effectively tightens the aperture through which prison excessive-force claims may pass. Practitioners must pay close attention to disciplinary records, plea colloquies, and video timelines before filing § 1983 actions. Conversely, defense counsel now possess a robust roadmap for early dismissal: (1) identify any good-time-credit loss, (2) highlight factual overlap, and (3) invoke Heck at the summary-judgment stage. The decision thus enhances clarity in an area long plagued by confusion over how civil rights litigation, habeas corpus, and prison discipline interrelate—ultimately promoting both judicial efficiency and doctrinal consistency.