Edward Girard Lail, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Lou Ann White; Jane Doe 1; Jane Doe 2; Virginiadepartment of Corrections, Court and Legalsection, Defendants-appellees, 978 F.2d 1255 (4th Cir. 1992)

Edward Girard Lail appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Lail alleged that the Defendants improperly considered his prior convictions in determining his parole date. He was classed for parole eligibility purposes as a fourth-term felon under Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-151 (Michie 1991).¹  To the extent that Lail alleges a § 1983 claim against the individual defendants, it is time-barred by Virginia's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985); Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243(A) (Michie 1992).² 

Since Lail's allegations challenge the duration of his confinement, however, he is required to exhaust state remedies. A petitioner who challenges the fact or duration of confinement may not avoid the exhaustion requirement by seeking injunctive, declaratory, or monetary relief under the civil rights statutes. Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70, 72 (4th Cir. 1983). Exhaustion is required when a § 1983 claim attacks the fact or duration of confinement. See Alexander v. Johnson, 742 F.2d 117, 126 (4th Cir. 1984).

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.

So far as the complaint is considered as one filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

So far as the complaint is considered to challenge the fact or duration of confinement, the plaintiff has not exhausted state remedies, and the case is accordingly remanded to the district court to be

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.