2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-3-2010 

# C aleb M ali k B eyah v

. N J S t ate P arole B d P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2295

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C aleb M al i k Beyah v

. N J S t at e P ar o le Bd " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1943. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1943CL D- 2 9 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2295

___________ C A L E B M A L IK B E Y A H , A ppel l ant v . NEW J ERS EY S TAT E P AROLE B OARD

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 05220) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 A ugus t20, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: February3, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM C al eb M al ek B ey ah fi l ed thi s ci vi l r i ght s act i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1983 a g a in st th e N e w Je rse yS tate P a ro le B o a rd f o llo w in g a n a d v e rse p a ro le d e c isio n . In h is compl ai nt , B ey ah ar gued thatthe B oar d’ s deci s i on w as “w i thoutl egal j us t i fi cat i on, ” andT h e D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t it s d ism iss a l, th o u g h w ith o u t p re ju d ice , “is m e a n t to 1 f in a lly re s o lv e th e m a tte r.” 2 thathe s houl d have be en gr ant ed par ol e “on gr ounds of [hi s ] advanc emet s [s i c] and m ent al , and s pi r i tual change s . ” The D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed B ey ah’ s appl i cat i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntw i thoutpr ej udi ce 1 p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(b )(ii) a n d 1 9 1 5 A (b )(1 ) b e c a u se its o n lyid e n tifia b le cl ai m w as H eck-barr ed. T he D i stri ctC ou rtdecli ned t o co nst rue the co m plai nt as a pet i t i on forhabea s corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254 “[b] eca us e of the nega t i ve c o n s e q u e n c e s th a t f

lo w f ro m th e f ilin g o f s u c h a p e titio n .” B e y a h a p p e a le d . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s al forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . See A l l ah v. S e iv e rlin g , 2 2 9 F .3 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). H a v in g g ra n ted B e y a h lea v e to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris, w e m u st d ism iss h is a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ) if it i s fr i vol ous , i . e. , i f i thas no ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw . See N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). Th e d o c tr i n e o f

He c k v . Hu mp h r e y , 5 1 2 U. S . 4 7 7 ( 1 9 9 4 ) , p r e c l u d e s § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms w hos e s ucce s s “w oul d nece s s ar i l yi m pl ythe i nval i di ty ” of a convi ct i on ors ent ence that h a s n o ta l r e a d y b e e n r e v e r s e d , e x p u n g e d , d e c l a r e d i n v a l i d , o rc a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n b y a fe d era l cou rt ’s i ssu an ce o f a w ri t of h ab ea s co rpu s. Id. at 48 7 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt pr oper l yconcl uded thatthi s doctr i ne appl i es t o B ey ah’ s § 1983 act i on, as none of the3

a f o re m e n tio n e d p re re q u is ite s is p re s e n t in h is c a s e . A ccordi ng l y , becau se this app eal present s no argu able l egal i ssue, w e w i l l dis m i ss itp u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).