Israel v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7836
    JACOB ISRAEL, a/k/a John Langowski,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-02-497-7)
    Submitted:   February 25, 2003            Decided:   March 12, 2003
    Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jacob Israel, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Jacob Israel appeals the district court’s order denying relief
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) on his claim alleging the Virginia
    Department of Corrections improperly classified him as ineligible
    for parole under Virginia Code § 53.1-151(B1).         Israel initially
    filed his complaint under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000).         The district
    court dismissed without prejudice and required that Israel file his
    claim pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    .      Because Israel does not seek
    release from custody, but rather seeks only a determination that he
    should not have been classified as ineligible for parole, Israel’s
    claim was properly brought under § 1983.        See Strader v. Troy, 
    571 F.2d 1263
    , 1269 (4th Cir. 1978).         The district court, however,
    properly determined Israel’s claims were without merit because he
    has the requisite prior felony convictions to be classified as
    parole   ineligible   under   Virginia   law.     We   therefore   affirm
    substantially on the reasoning of the district court but modify to
    reflect dismissal under § 1983 rather than § 2254.          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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7836

Judges: Widener, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 3/12/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024