Eddie Thomas Jackson v. DEBRA ALT, District Parole Supervisor, in her individual capacity On Appeal From…

CLD-253 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-3211
________________
EDDIE THOMAS JACKSON,
Appellant
v.
DEBRA ALT, District Parole Supervisor,
in her individual capacity
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-01543)
District Judge: Honorable Mary L. Cooper
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
May 31, 2007
Before: RENDELL, SMITH AND JORDAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: June 27, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Eddie Jackson appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissing his civil rights action.
In 1991, Jackson was sentenced in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer

-- 1 of 3 --

2
County, to 15 years in prison for a drug conviction. After serving five years, he was
released on parole. In 2000, Jackson was arrested on federal firearm charges. He was
sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment on that conviction in 2002. In June 2005,
defendant, a New Jersey parole supervisor, issued a parole violator warrant against
Jackson due to the 2000 arrest. Defendant lodged the warrant as a detainer at Jackson’s
place of confinement.
Jackson then filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the
warrant violated his due process and equal protection rights because his “maximum
expiration date” was August 24, 2001, and the parole board’s jurisdiction over him
expired on that date. The District Court dismissed Jackson’s complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim.
Jackson timely filed a notice of appeal. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having granted Jackson leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal,
we now determine whether his appeal should be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
An appeal may be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it has no arguable basis in law or
fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Jackson seeks damages for alleged due process and equal protection violations
arising from what he views as the improper issuance of the parole violator warrant and
the lodging of that warrant as a detainer. We agree with the District Court that Jackson
may not proceed under § 1983 because he has not successfully challenged the warrant in
any state or federal proceeding. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994);

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Antonelli v. Foster, 104 F.3d 899, 900-901 (7 th Cir. 2005).
Having concluded that the District Court properly dismissed Jackson’s complaint,
we will dismiss Jackson’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

-- 3 of 3 --