conviction for aggravate rape and his 1973 sentence for attempted simple rape because the changes “effectively alter or extend [his] prison terms” in violation of ex post facto provisions contained in the United States Constitution and the Louisiana constitution. Those defendants then moved for summary judgment, alleging that Robinson’s complaint was time barred by the Louisiana liberative prescription of one year applicable to delictual actions. Robinson argued, inter alia, that his complaint was timely under the doctrine of contra non valentem. He reasoned that the doctrine applied because he was unable to bring a § 1983 challenge to Louisiana’s pardon procedures until the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) (<HOLDING>). The district court granted summary judgment
holding that federal prisoners challenging determination of their future parole eligibility date must bring their suit under habeas corpus theory holding habeas petition challenging denial of custody credits is not related to the conditions of  confinement and was properly brought in the district of conviction holding state immune from suit brought in state court holding that the claims of two state prisoners challenging the validity of state procedures for determining parole eligibility were properly brought under  1983 and did not have to be brought in a habeas proceeding holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper