USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                         ____________________





No. 97-2095



                          DONALD J. MCCLAIN,



                         Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                  v.



                      MICHELLE FUSEYMORE, ET AL.,



                        Defendants, Appellees.

                                   

                         ____________________



             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



               [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                        Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,

                            Circuit Judges.



                         ____________________



    Donald J. McClain on brief pro se.

    Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and  Annette C. Benedetto,

Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.





                         ____________________



                            April 25, 1998

                         ____________________







           Per Curiam.  The district court dismissed the 

    complaint under 42 U.S.C.  1983 for a failure to state a

    claim.  The complaint seeks declaratory and other relief

    against the state parole authorities for alleged constitutional

    violations in failing to take action on a pending parole

    revocation warrant, delaying or denying a parole hearing, and 

    miscalculating plaintiff's parole eligibility date.  

             While the appeal was pending, this court decided, in

    White v. Gittens, 121 F.3d 803 (1st Cir. 1997), that a  1983

    action challenging the validity of a state parole revocation on

    constitutional grounds is not cognizable in federal court

    unless and until the parole revocation "has been reversed on

    direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by

    a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or

    called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of

    habeas corpus."  Id. at 806 (quoting, and extending to parole

    revocations, the rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487

    (1994)).   The same rule applies to claims challenging a denial

    of parole, and plaintiff's other challenges to the validity or

    duration of his confinement.  Id. at 805.

             Accordingly, we need not reach the merits of

    plaintiff's pleading.  Id. at 806.  The judgment of dismissal

    is affirmed and modified to reflect that the dismissal is

    without prejudice.