opposite. Heck, 512 U.S. at 492, 502, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment). Later, in Spencer v. Kemna, four justices supported the "better view” in Justice Souter’s concurrence in Spencer that a prisoner no longer in custody should be able to challenge the constitutionality of his or her conviction. 523 U.S. 1, 18-25, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). Although circuits are split on this issue, our Court follows the majority view— based on Judge Souter's analysis — that Heck does not apply to claimants no longer in custody and thus without access to habeas relief, at least when the claimant is not responsible for failing to seek or limiting his own access to habeas relief. Wilson, 535 F.3d at 267-68; accord Cohen v. Longshore, 621 F.3d 1311, 1316-17 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Because of inadequate briefing by the
holding that despite petitioners inability to establish habeas relief under cat because evidence did not support finding that colombian government would acquiesce to torture by drug cartel  petitioner was entitled to relief under statecreated danger exception holding that the district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a habeas petition regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added holding that heck is inapplicable at least where an inability to obtain habeas relief is not due to the petitioners own lack of diligence emphasis added