The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and

recommendation of the Honorable William A. Knox, United States

Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-3055

___________

Michael Ladd, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 * Appeal from the United States

Cranston Mitchell; Betty Day; * District Court for the

Robert Newsome; Victoria Myers; * Western District of Missouri.

Anthony Spillers; Paul Herman; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Denis Agniel; Douglas Pimm; *

Marilyn Cleary; Dora Schriro, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: July 5, 1996

 Filed: July 30, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Ladd, a Missouri inmate, appeals the district court's1

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.

While on parole in Missouri in 1986, Ladd was arrested on pending

Kansas charges. After he posted bail, the Missouri Board of Probation and

Parole ordered Ladd's arrest on a parole violator warrant, and Ladd

subsequently was given a preliminary probable cause hearing to revoke his

parole; Ladd was not, however, given a final revocation hearing prior to

his extradition to Kansas. Ladd subsequently served time in Kansas until

1993. Upon his 1993 Kansas parole, he was returned to Missouri pursuant

to a Missouri
 See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 487-88 (1972). 2

-2-

parole detainer. Ladd was then given a final revocation hearing and his

Missouri parole was revoked. Ladd alleged that because defendants denied

him a final revocation hearing within a reasonable time of his 1986

arrest, he was deprived of 2,436 days of his liberty (the time he served 2

in Kansas) without due process, in that (1) he was denied "his right" to

concurrent sentencing on his Kansas and Missouri sentences, and (2) he was

classified as an "absconder" upon the final revocation of his Missouri

parole, resulting in the denial of credit towards his Missouri sentence for

the time he served in Kansas. Ladd requested damages and declaratory

relief.

Concluding that Ladd's claim was not actionable in light of Heck v.

Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), the district court dismissed the action.

We agree with the district court that, under the requirements of

Heck, Ladd's suit is not actionable. Ladd's suit challenges the duration

of his confinement because his damages claim is based on the premise that,

due to defendants' actions regarding the revocation of his parole, the

length of his Missouri sentence has not been reduced by the amount of time

he spent incarcerated in Kansas. See Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. at 2372

(if judgment in favor of prisoner "would necessarily imply the invalidity

of his conviction or sentence," complaint must be dismissed unless prisoner

demonstrates conviction or sentence has already been invalidated); cf.

Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Heck

precluded action that would have implied invalidity of denial of parole and

thus was challenge to duration of confinement).
-3-

The district court's dismissal is modified to be without prejudice.

See Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231, 234 (8th Cir. 1996). The judgment is

otherwise affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.