[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1047



                                    YUSUF M. ALI,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                               SHEILA HUBBARD, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________



                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Yusuf M. Ali on brief pro se.
            ____________

            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General  and   Susanne  G.  Levsen,
            __________________                            ___________________

        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

            Brian W. Brady and Gillespie & Associates on brief for  appellees,
            ______________     ______________________

        John Chapman and Harry Collins.

            Roger  H. Randall  and Law  Offices of Bruce  R. Fox on  brief for
            _________________      _____________________________

        appellee Barbara Quinn.





                                 ____________________



                                   August 27, 1997

                                 ____________________





























                 Per Curiam.   Plaintiff/appellant  Yusuf M.  Ali appeals
                 __________



            the dismissal of his federal  civil rights claims arising out



            of the revocation of his parole in 1994.  We affirm.



                 Only  one of  Ali's  claims merits  extended discussion.



            Ali claims that  defendant parole board members  violated his



            right to  due process  when they failed  to disclose  to him,



            during his parole revocation hearing, the actual documents on



            which they based their decision.  Assuming arguendo that such
                                                       ________



            a failure to disclose is  a violation of federal due process,



            see United  States ex rel.  Carson v. Taylor, 540  F.2d 1156,
            ___ ______________________________    ______



            1161-63 (2d  Cir. 1976);  see also  Morrissey v.  Brewer, 408
                                      ___ ____  _________     ______



            U.S. 471, 489 (1972) (due process requires "disclosure to the



            parolee  of evidence against him"), we nevertheless find that



            Ali's claim was properly dismissed.   



                 "[A] state prisoner's claim for damages [and declaratory



            relief]  is not  cognizable  under  42 U.S.C.     1983 if  'a



            judgment  in favor of  the plaintiff would  necessarily imply



            the invalidity  of his  conviction or  sentence,' unless  the



            prisoner  can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has



            previously  been invalidated."  Edwards v. Balisok, 117 S.Ct.
                                            _______    _______



            1584, 1585 (1997)  (quoting Heck v.  Humphrey, 512 U.S.  477,
                                        ____     ________



            487  (1994)).   This  is  true  not  only when  the  prisoner



            challenges the judgment as a substantive matter but also when



            he challenges "procedures . .  . such as necessarily to imply



            the invalidity  of  the judgment."    Id.   at  1587.    This
                                                  __







                                         -2-





























            principle applies  to prison  disciplinary hearings,  id., as
                                                                  __



            well as to  revocation and denials of  parole, Butterfield v.
                                                           ___________



            Bail,  1997 WL  414250 (9th  Cir. July  25, 1997)  (denial of
            ____



            parole); Littles  v. Board  of Pardons  and Paroles  Div., 68
                     _______     ____________________________________



            F.3d 122, 123 (5th cir. 1995) (revocation of parole); Schafer
                                                                  _______



            v.  Moore, 46  F.3d  43,  44-45 (8th  Cir.  1995) (denial  of
                _____



            parole).  



                 Ali  claims  that,  "because the  evidence  used  by the



            hearing panel was withheld from him, .  . . he was denied the



            opportunity  to meet  the case  against  him in  a meaningful



            manner and was thus wrongfully condemned to reincarceration."



            Appellant's Brief at 12.  Thus, a judgment in favor of  Ali's



            due  process claim would "necessarily imply the invalidity of



            [the revocation of his parole]."   Heck 512 U.S. at 487;  see
                                               ____                   ___



            also DeWitt v.  Ventetoulo, 6 F.3d 32, 36-37  (1st Cir. 1993)
            ____ ______     __________



            (granting habeas  relief to  prisoner whose  parole had  been



            revoked in  violation of due process), cert. denied, 511 U.S.
                                                   _____ ______



            1032 (1994).   Since Ali has not shown that the revocation of



            his parole has  been invalidated, his claim for  monetary and



            declaratory  relief must be dismissed.  See Butterfield, 1997
                                                    ___ ___________



            WL 414250 (no  cognizable claim under    1983 where  prisoner



            alleged  that defendants violated  his due process  rights in



            finding  him  ineligible  parole on  the  basis  of incorrect



            information); Stone-Bey v.  Barnes, 1997 WL 409423  (7th Cir.
                          _________     ______



            July  22, 1997) (claim  that due  process rights  of prisoner







                                         -3-





























            were  violated   because  record   was  devoid   of  evidence



            supporting disciplinary action barred by Balisok).
                                                     _______



                 As  to  Ali's other  federal  and state  law  claims, we



            affirm the dismissal essentially for the reasons given by the



            district court in its memorandum and order, dated January 26,



            1996.



                 Affirmed.
                 ________















































































                                         -4-