Leon Cheatham v. William Muse, No. 13-7561 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7561 LEON CHEATHAM, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WILLIAM MUSE, Chairman; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,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 Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
