Opinion
No. 10-15668.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed February 23, 2011.
Jerry A. Burton, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Amy Daniel, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00354-JLT.
This case was assigned, by the consent of the parties, to a Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Jerry A. Burton appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether Burton's habeas petition (1) was exhausted and (2) raised a federally cognizable claim for which habeas relief may be granted.
Burton contends that the prison disciplinary decision validating him as a gang member and subsequently placing him in the Segregated Housing Unit (SHU) and precluding him from earning credits pursuant to California Penal Code § 2933 violated his constitutional rights. The district court properly dismissed Burton's petition for lack of jurisdiction. Even if Burton exhausted his state judicial remedies, his petition fails to raise a federally cognizable claim for which habeas relief may be granted. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence.").