2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-3-2010

Caleb Malik Beyah v. NJ State Parole Bd

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2295

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Caleb Malik Beyah v. NJ State Parole Bd" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1943.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1943
CLD-291 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2295

___________

CALEB MALIK BEYAH, 

Appellant

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-05220)

District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 20, 2009

Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(filed: February 3, 2010 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

 Caleb Malek Beyah filed this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983

against the New Jersey State Parole Board following an adverse parole decision. In his

complaint, Beyah argued that the Board’s decision was “without legal justification,” and
 The District Court noted that its dismissal, though without prejudice, “is meant to 1

finally resolve the matter.”

2

that he should have been granted parole “on grounds of [his] advancemets [sic] and

mental, and spiritual changes.” The District Court granted Beyah’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis. The District Court then dismissed the complaint without prejudice1

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) because its only identifiable

claim was Heck-barred. The District Court declined to construe the complaint as a

petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 “[b]ecause of the negative

consequences that flow from the filing of such a petition.” Beyah appealed. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review

over the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Allah v.

Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). Having granted Beyah leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we must dismiss his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it is

frivolous, i.e., if it has no arguable basis in law. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325 (1989). 

The doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), precludes § 1983 claims

whose success “would necessarily imply the invalidity” of a conviction or sentence that

has not already been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a

federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 487. The District Court

properly concluded that this doctrine applies to Beyah’s § 1983 action, as none of the
3

aforementioned prerequisites is present in his case. 

Accordingly, because this appeal presents no arguable legal issue, we will dismiss

it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).