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

### for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report an d re commendation of the Honorable William A. Knox, United State s 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 Anthony Spillers; Paul Herman; * [UNPUBLISHED] Denis Agniel; Douglas Pimm; * Marilyn Cleary; Dora Schriro, * * Appellees.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's 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.

While on parole in Missouri in 1986, Ladd was arrested on pendin g Kansas charges. After he posted bail, the Misso uri Board of Probation and Parole ordered Ladd's arrest on a parole violator warrant, and Lad d subsequently was give n a preliminary probable cause hearing to revoke his parole; Ladd was not, however, given a final revocation hearing prior to his extradition to Ka nsas. 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 r evoked. Ladd alleged that because defendants denied him a fin al revocation hearing within a reasonable time of his 198 6 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 Missour i parole, resulting in the denial of credit towards his Missouri sentence fo r the time h e served in Kansas. Ladd requested damages and declarator y relief.

Concludin g that Ladd's claim was not actionable in light of Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), the district c ourt dismissed the action.

We agree with the district court that, under the requirements o f 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, th e length of his Missouri sentence has not been red uced by the amount of time he spent incarcerated in Kansas. See Heck v. Hu mphrey , 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 prisone r demo nstrates conviction or sentence has already been invalidated); cf

. Schafer v . Moore , 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) ( Hec k precluded action that would have implied invalidity of denial of parole an d thus was challenge to duration of confinement).

### -3- The distr ict court's dismissal is modified to be without prejudice. See Sheldon v. Hundley , 83 F.3d 231, 234 (8th Ci r. 1996). The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

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