Case Name: John P. PONDER, Appellant, v. Leroy BROWNLEE, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Larry Zeno, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; William Walker, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; John Felts, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Carolyn Robinson, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; John Belken, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Erma Hendrix, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Michael D. Huckabee, Governor, State of Arkansas, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-05
Citations: 227 F. App'x 533
Docket Number: No. 06-2648
Parties: John P. PONDER, Appellant, v. Leroy BROWNLEE, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Larry Zeno, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; William Walker, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; John Felts, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Carolyn Robinson, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; John Belken, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Erma Hendrix, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Michael D. Huckabee, Governor, State of Arkansas, Appellees.
Judges: Before BYE, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 533–534

Head Matter:
John P. PONDER, Appellant, v. Leroy BROWNLEE, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Larry Zeno, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; William Walker, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; John Felts, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Carolyn Robinson, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; John Belken, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Erma Hendrix, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; Michael D. Huckabee, Governor, State of Arkansas, Appellees.
No. 06-2648.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 28, 2007.
Filed: July 5, 2007.
John P. Ponder, Grady, AR, pro se.
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
John Ponder appeals the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915A pre-service dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that a change in clemency guidelines constituted an ex post facto violation. We grant Ponder's motion to appeal in forma pauperis, and, upon de novo review, we reverse. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (standard of review). While the district court found that Ponder's claim should be brought in a habeas action, we find that his claim was cognizable in a section 1983 action, as success on the claim would not necessarily spell a speedier release, but would at most speed consideration of his clemency application. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005). Accordingly, we remand to the district court for consideration of Ponder's claim on the merits.