Civil rights suits after death
Stephanie Ann Ripple v. Harry
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Ripple, representing McCool’s estate, asks whether a rule requiring a favorable end to a conviction challenge bars civil-rights damages claims when he died in custody and could no longer seek federal review.
- Who it affects
- Ripple’s estate and McCool’s daughter received no Supreme Court ruling on whether their claims can proceed.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
She also asks whether this forecloses the estate’s remedy and whether McCool’s daughter may sue for loss of family ties.
The case concerned whether a civil-rights damages claim can continue after a person in custody dies and whether his child can sue for loss of family ties.
Question presented
1. Whether the favorable-termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim brought by the estate of a prisoner who died in custody, rendering federal habeas corpus relief impossible through no fault of the decedent or the estate? 2. Whether applying Heck after a prisoner’s death extinguishes the only remaining damages remedy and thereby nullifies a state survival statute that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 requires federal courts to apply? 3. Whether a surviving child has standing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to assert a substantive due-process claim for loss of familial association arising from deliberate indifference that caused a parent’s death in custody?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.