Case ID: f-appx_415/html/0816-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerry A. BURTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-15668.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
    Jerry A. Burton, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Amy Daniel, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. 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 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.

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) (“[Hjabeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”).

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