Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01557/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01557-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Robertson
Appellant
Charlotte Sumner
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1557

___________

Patrick Robertson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Charlotte Sumner, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2007

Filed: March 12, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas state prisoner Patrick Robertson appeals the district court’s1

 adverse

grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Charlotte Sumner,

the records coordinator for the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). He seeks

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. We grant Robertson leave to

appeal IFP, and we affirm, but on different grounds than those relied on by the district

Appellate Case: 06-1557 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2007 Entry ID: 3287064
2

Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 921-23

(2007), we decline to affirm on the failure-to-exhaust grounds relied on by the district

court.

-2-

court. See United States v. Siwek, 453 F.3d 1079, 1084 (8th Cir. 2006) (this court may

affirm district court’s judgment on any basis supported by record).2

Robertson’s claim for damages stemming from the alleged miscalculation of his

parole-eligibility date is Heck-barred, see Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87

(1994) (claim for damages that necessarily implies invalidity of conviction or sentence

is not cognizable under § 1983 until conviction or sentence has been invalidated), and

any challenge to his parole-eligibility date must be asserted in a habeas action, see

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005) (state prisoners may use only habeas

remedies when they seek to invalidate duration of confinement, either directly through

injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly through judicial determination

that necessarily implies unlawfulness of State’s custody); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475, 489-90 (1973) (challenge to fact or duration of confinement must be through

habeas corpus).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1557 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2007 Entry ID: 3287064