Case Name: Sabil M. MUJAHID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debbie MILLER, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-02
Citations: 615 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 13-36014
Parties: Sabil M. MUJAHID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debbie MILLER, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.