Case ID: f-appx_615/html/0458-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sabil M. MUJAHID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debbie MILLER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-36014.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Aug. 11, 2015.
    Filed Sept. 2, 2015.
    John Paul Balazs, Law Offices of John P. Balazs, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Sabil M. Mujahid, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Sabil M. Mujahid (Mujahid), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In the petition, Mujahid challenged a disciplinary proceeding finding him guilty of disobeying a direct order to cease talking with another inmate.

Mujahid is challenging conditions of his confinement that occurred some time in the fairly distant past, in a facility where he is no longer housed. In addition, Muja-hid concedes that he lost no good-time credits because of his disciplinary segregation. Accordingly, because Mujahid does not challenge the duration of his confinement or an ongoing increased restriction on the conditions of his confinement, habe-as relief is not available to address Muja-hid’s challenge. See Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992, 999-1000 (9th Cir.2015) (“[Hjabeas jurisdiction is available only for claims that, if successful, would have some shortening effect on the length of a person’s custody...id. at 1004 (same for claims involving “greater restrictions of ... liberty”); see also Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n. 13, 131 S.Ct. 1289,179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011) (“[Wjhen a prisoner’s claim would not necessarily spell speedier release, that claim does not lie at the core of habeas corpus, and may be brought, if at all, under § 1983....”) (citations omitted).

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