[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 99-1563

GERALD M. BROWN, JR.,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; ANTHONY CAPRARO,ESQ.; JEFFREY B. PINE; DAVID MORROWITZ, ESQ.; TERRANCE LIVINGSTON, ESQ.; STEVEN NUGENT, ESQ.; GEORGE A. VOSE,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge, Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Gerald M. Brown, Jr. on brief pro se. Sheldon Whitehouse, Attorney General, and Elisabeth A. Wallace, Special Assistant Attorney General, on Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss or to Summarily Affirm the Judgment Below, for appellees. March 24, 2000

Per Curiam. After the district court denied his

petition for habeas corpus relief from his conviction, state

prisoner Brown filed a complaint attacking the same

conviction by seeking damages, declaratory and injunctive

relief against named defendants under

.

Following a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss, the

magistrate recommended a dismissal and the district court

agreed. Plaintiff appeals.

Reviewing the dismissal de novo, we affirm. Habeas

corpus is the exclusive avenue of relief for a state prisoner

seeking release from confinement, so plaintiff's claims for

injunctive relief must be dismissed. Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994) (explaining Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973)). The claims for declaratory relief and

damages also must be dismissed because the judgment plaintiff

seeks "would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction," and he has not demonstrated that the conviction

has been invalidated by any proper state authority or

tribunal, nor has he obtained a federal writ of habeas

corpus.1 Heck,

.

1 In a separate order issued today, this court also denies a certificate of appealability to challenge the dismissal of plaintiff's habeas petition. We need not reach the merits of the claims because

this suit is not cognizable in federal court. White v.

Gittens,

(1st Cir. 1997). The judgment is

affirmed but modified to reflect that the dismissal is

without prejudice.

. Appellant's "motion to

produce" is denied.

-3-