Leon Cheatham v. William Muse

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01082-CMH-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999297727]. Mailed to: Cheatham. [13-7561]

Appeal: 13-7561

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/18/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7561

LEON CHEATHAM,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM MUSE, Chairman; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,
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-01082-CMH-JFA)

Submitted:

January 31, 2014

Decided:

February 18, 2014

Before DUNCAN, SHEDD, 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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7561

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/18/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Leon Cheatham, a Virginia prisoner, filed an action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claiming that the Virginia Parole
Board (“Board”) had improperly found him ineligible for parole.
The

district

court

ruled

that

Cheatham's

claim

could

not

be

brought in a § 1983 action and instead needed to be pursued in a
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

See Cheatham v. Muse, No.

1:13–cv–01082–CMH–JFA (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 30 & entered Sept. 4,
2013).

On appeal, Cheatham argues that his claim is cognizable

under § 1983.

We vacate and remand for further consideration of

his complaint.
Cheatham
that

he

was

claims

ineligible

that
for

the

parole

Board

improperly

consideration.

concluded
Thus,

if

Cheatham succeeded on his complaint, it would, at most, have
resulted in a parole hearing where the Board would have full
discretion to 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).

2

Appeal: 13-7561

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/18/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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

*

We recognize that Cheatham currently has a very similar
case pending in district court. See Cheatham v. Muse, NO. 1:13cv-00320-CMH-TRJ. While these two cases may be duplicative, we
leave that question for the district court to decide in the
first instance. If the district court determines that the cases
are duplicative, it may either consolidate them or dismiss this
case.

3