
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
