Case ID: f-appx_586/html/0384-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark Anthony JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Governor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-15035.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 4, 2014.
    Mark Anthony Jones, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Mark Anthony Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Jones is eligible for re-sentencing under Proposition 36 and that Cal.Penal Code § 1170.126 is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011), and we'affirm.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Jones’ action seeking in-junctive and declaratory relief because it challenged the fact and duration of his state criminal sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-89, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.