barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). In Heck, the Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for damages is not cognizable under § 1983 if it calls into question the lawfulness of his conviction or confinement, unless he can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364. To grant Johnson’s requested relief would necessarily invalidate the Parole Board’s decision to revoke his parole. See Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir.2006) (applying Heck to parole revocation decisions). Accordingly, he is precluded from attacking it through § 1983. The fact that Johnson was re-released on parole does not preclude the application of Heck. Id. at 177-78 (<HOLDING>). Finally, Johnson alleged that, once he was
holding that federal maritime law and not state law applies to all actions for wrongful death in navigable state waters holding that an appellate court considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and grants the state all reasonable inferences recognizing that hecks favorable termination rule applies to all  1983 plaintiffs not just those in state custody recognizing that the rule of lenity applies only after courts exhaust all other evidence of congressional meaning recognizing rule