108 F.3d 1371
James Arthur BROWN, Plaintiff--Appellant,
Lonnie M. SAUNDERS, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center;
John B. Metzger, III, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board;
Ronald Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections; Laurel A. Corner, Manager, Central Criminal
and Legal Records; V.V. GRANT, Augusta Grievance
Coordinator; MRS. BYRAM, Secretary/AWP, Augusta
Correctional Center, Defendants--Appellees,
Lydia Calvert TAYLOR, Judge, Circuit Court for the City of
Norfolk; THOMAS H. WOOD, Judge, Augusta County Circuit
Court; R.M. Spencer, Judge, Norfolk General District Court;
Kent P. Porter, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, Circuit
Court for the City of Norfolk; James N. Garrett, Jr.,
Defense Counsel, Portsmouth; Junius P. Fulton, III,
Appellate Counsel, Norfolk, Virginia; Marion R. Crank,
Detective, Youth Division S/C Unit of Norfolk, Defendants.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 27, 1997.
Decided March 10, 1997.
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James Arthur Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Appellant filed an action seeking damages, challenging his ineligibility for parole under Virginia law. To recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or sentence, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a prisoner must prove that the conviction or sentence was: (1) reversed on direct appeal; (2) expunged by executive order; (3) declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination; or (4) called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. See Heck v. Humphrey, --- U.S. ----, 62 U.S.L.W. 4594, 4597 (U.S. June 24, 1994) (No. 93-6188). Because Appellant has failed to make such a showing, his claim is not ripe and must be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm as modified to reflect dismissal without prejudice to Appellant's right to file another action if his claim becomes ripe. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.