Leon Cheatham v. William Muse , 539 F. App'x 182 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6714
LEON CHEATHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM MUSE, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; HAROLD CLARK,
Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00320-CMH-TRJ)
Submitted: August 30, 2013 Decided: September 5, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leon Cheatham, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leon Cheatham, a Virginia prisoner, filed an action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claiming that the Virginia Parole
Board (“Board”) had improperly found him ineligible for parole.
The district court found that the complaint was duplicative of
another action which had been dismissed without prejudice on
December 28, 2012. Thus, on April 12, 2013, the district court
dismissed Cheatham’s complaint with prejudice as duplicative.
Cheatham’s other, essentially identical, case was dismissed
without prejudice to Cheatham’s filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The court found that Cheatham’s claim could not be
brought in a § 1983 action. See Cheatham v. Muse, No. 1:12-cv-
01403-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. Dec. 28, 2012). Cheatham timely
appealed, but, on February 14, 2013, we granted Cheatham’s
motion to dismiss his appeal of the December 28 order under Fed.
R. App. P. 42(b). In the instant appeal, Cheatham challenges
the district court’s April 12 order. We vacate and remand for
further consideration of his complaint.
While Cheatham’s second complaint was duplicative, his
first complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Moreover, the
district court erred in concluding that Cheatham’s first
complaint was improperly filed as a § 1983 action. If Cheatham
succeeded on his complaint, it would, at most, have resulted in
a parole hearing where the Board would have full discretion to
2
deny parole. Because Cheatham’s claim would not necessarily
result in a speedier release, it does not lie at “the core of
habeas corpus” and, therefore, may be pursued in a § 1983
action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973);
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal
order and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3