conduct that would invalidate his or her underlying sentence or conviction unless that conviction has already been called into question. Id. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364. The Supreme Court thereby effectively barred prisoners from collaterally attacking their underlying convictions, directly or indirectly, through the § 1983 vehicle. To determine whether a § 1983 claim should be dismissed as an impermissible collateral attack on an underlying conviction, “[A] district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless th 2) (same), and Boyle v. Mayer, 46 Fed.Appx. 340, 340 (6th Cir.2002) (same), with Bradley v. Pryor, 305 F.3d 1287, 1290 (11th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). These opinions, however, were all entered
holding claim is not cognizable holding that no  1983 claim exists for injunctive relief to compel dna testing holding that a claim seeking dna testing is cognizable under section 1983 holding that a  1983 claim requesting release of evidence for dna testing is cognizable because plaintiff only seeks access to evidence holding claim is cognizable