Caleb Malik Beyah v. New Jersey State Parole Board

CLD-291 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2295
___________
CALEB MALIK BEYAH,
Appellant
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-05220)
District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 20, 2009
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(filed: February 3, 2010 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Caleb Malek Beyah filed this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983
against the New Jersey State Parole Board following an adverse parole decision. In his
complaint, Beyah argued that the Board’s decision was “without legal justification,” and

-- 1 of 3 --

The District Court noted that its dismissal, though without prejudice, “is meant to1
finally resolve the matter.”
2
that he should have been granted parole “on grounds of [his] advancemets [sic] and
mental, and spiritual changes.” The District Court granted Beyah’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis. The District Court then dismissed the complaint without prejudice1
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) because its only identifiable
claim was Heck-barred. The District Court declined to construe the complaint as a
petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 “[b]ecause of the negative
consequences that flow from the filing of such a petition.” Beyah appealed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Allah v.
Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). Having granted Beyah leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we must dismiss his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it is
frivolous, i.e., if it has no arguable basis in law. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989).
The doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), precludes § 1983 claims
whose success “would necessarily imply the invalidity” of a conviction or sentence that
has not already been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a
federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 487. The District Court
properly concluded that this doctrine applies to Beyah’s § 1983 action, as none of the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
aforementioned prerequisites is present in his case.
Accordingly, because this appeal presents no arguable legal issue, we will dismiss
it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

-- 3 of 3 --