Court Opinion

ID: 2964914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:54.293861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:02.786349
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1047

                                    YUSUF M. ALI,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               SHEILA HUBBARD, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Yusuf M. Ali on brief pro se.
            ____________
            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General  and   Susanne  G.  Levsen,
            __________________                            ___________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
            Brian W. Brady and Gillespie & Associates on brief for  appellees,
            ______________     ______________________
        John Chapman and Harry Collins.
            Roger  H. Randall  and Law  Offices of Bruce  R. Fox on  brief for
            _________________      _____________________________
        appellee Barbara Quinn.

                                 ____________________

                                   August 27, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Plaintiff/appellant  Yusuf M.  Ali appeals
                 __________

            the dismissal of his federal  civil rights claims arising out

            of the revocation of his parole in 1994.  We affirm.

                 Only  one of  Ali's  claims merits  extended discussion.

            Ali claims that  defendant parole board members  violated his

            right to  due process  when they failed  to disclose  to him,

            during his parole revocation hearing, the actual documents on

            which they based their decision.  Assuming arguendo that such
                                                       ________

            a failure to disclose is  a violation of federal due process,

            see United  States ex rel.  Carson v. Taylor, 540  F.2d 1156,
            ___ ______________________________    ______

            1161-63 (2d  Cir. 1976);  see also  Morrissey v.  Brewer, 408
                                      ___ ____  _________     ______

            U.S. 471, 489 (1972) (due process requires "disclosure to the

            parolee  of evidence against him"), we nevertheless find that

            Ali's claim was properly dismissed.   

                 "[A] state prisoner's claim for damages [and declaratory

            relief]  is not  cognizable  under  42 U.S.C.     1983 if  'a

            judgment  in favor of  the plaintiff would  necessarily imply

            the invalidity  of his  conviction or  sentence,' unless  the

            prisoner  can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has

            previously  been invalidated."  Edwards v. Balisok, 117 S.Ct.
                                            _______    _______

            1584, 1585 (1997)  (quoting Heck v.  Humphrey, 512 U.S.  477,
                                        ____     ________

            487  (1994)).   This  is  true  not  only when  the  prisoner

            challenges the judgment as a substantive matter but also when

            he challenges "procedures . .  . such as necessarily to imply

            the invalidity  of  the judgment."    Id.   at  1587.    This
                                                  __

                                         -2-

            principle applies  to prison  disciplinary hearings,  id., as
                                                                  __

            well as to  revocation and denials of  parole, Butterfield v.
                                                           ___________

            Bail,  1997 WL  414250 (9th  Cir. July  25, 1997)  (denial of
            ____

            parole); Littles  v. Board  of Pardons  and Paroles  Div., 68
                     _______     ____________________________________

            F.3d 122, 123 (5th cir. 1995) (revocation of parole); Schafer
                                                                  _______

            v.  Moore, 46  F.3d  43,  44-45 (8th  Cir.  1995) (denial  of
                _____

            parole).  

                 Ali  claims  that,  "because the  evidence  used  by the

            hearing panel was withheld from him, .  . . he was denied the

            opportunity  to meet  the case  against  him in  a meaningful

            manner and was thus wrongfully condemned to reincarceration."

            Appellant's Brief at 12.  Thus, a judgment in favor of  Ali's

            due  process claim would "necessarily imply the invalidity of

            [the revocation of his parole]."   Heck 512 U.S. at 487;  see
                                               ____                   ___

            also DeWitt v.  Ventetoulo, 6 F.3d 32, 36-37  (1st Cir. 1993)
            ____ ______     __________

            (granting habeas  relief to  prisoner whose  parole had  been

            revoked in  violation of due process), cert. denied, 511 U.S.
                                                   _____ ______

            1032 (1994).   Since Ali has not shown that the revocation of

            his parole has  been invalidated, his claim for  monetary and

            declaratory  relief must be dismissed.  See Butterfield, 1997
                                                    ___ ___________

            WL 414250 (no  cognizable claim under    1983 where  prisoner

            alleged  that defendants violated  his due process  rights in

            finding  him  ineligible  parole on  the  basis  of incorrect

            information); Stone-Bey v.  Barnes, 1997 WL 409423  (7th Cir.
                          _________     ______

            July  22, 1997) (claim  that due  process rights  of prisoner

                                         -3-

            were  violated   because  record   was  devoid   of  evidence

            supporting disciplinary action barred by Balisok).
                                                     _______

                 As  to  Ali's other  federal  and state  law  claims, we

            affirm the dismissal essentially for the reasons given by the

            district court in its memorandum and order, dated January 26,

            1996.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -4-