United States Court of Appeals
                         FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                ___________

                                No. 06-2648
                                ___________

John P. Ponder,                         *
                                        *
             Appellant,                 *
                                        *   Appeal from the United States
       v.                               *   District Court for the
                                        *   Eastern District of Arkansas.
Leroy Brownlee, Arkansas Post Prison *
Transfer Board; Larry Zeno, Arkansas *
Post Prison Transfer Board; William     *   [UNPUBLISHED]
Walker, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer *
Board; John Felts, Arkansas Post Prison *
Transfer Board; Carolyn Robinson,       *
Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board;    *
John Belken, Arkansas Post Prison       *
Transfer Board; Erma Hendrix,           *
Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board;    *
Michael D. Huckabee, Governor,          *
State of Arkansas,                      *
                                        *
             Appellees.                 *
                                  ___________

                           Submitted: June 28, 2007
                              Filed: July 5, 2007
                               ___________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.
       John Ponder appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915A pre-service
dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that a change in
clemency guidelines constituted an ex post facto violation. We grant Ponder’s motion
to appeal in forma pauperis, and, upon de novo review, we reverse. See Cooper v.
Schriro, 

, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review). While
the district court found that Ponder’s claim should be brought in a habeas action, we
find that his claim was cognizable in a section 1983 action, as success on the claim
would not necessarily spell a speedier release, but would at most speed consideration
of his clemency application. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 

, 82 (2005).
Accordingly, we remand to the district court for consideration of Ponder’s claim on
the merits.
                        ______________________________




                                         -2-