Case Name: Patrick ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. Charlotte SUMNER, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-12
Citations: 218 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: No. 06-1557
Parties: Patrick ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. Charlotte SUMNER, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 548–549

Head Matter:
Patrick ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. Charlotte SUMNER, Appellee.
No. 06-1557.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 7, 2007.
Filed: March 12, 2007.
Patrick Robertson, Arkansas Department of Correction, Tucker, AR, pro se.
Susannah Catherine Raney, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Ap-pellee.
Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas state prisoner Patrick Robertson appeals the district court's 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 for-ma 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 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).
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, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (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, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (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, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (challenge to fact or duration of confinement must be through habeas corpus).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. 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).
. Given the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Bock, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 910, 921-23, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007), we decline to affirm on the failure-to-exhaust grounds relied on by the district court.