Case Name: Andrew Rick LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-20
Citations: 73 F. App'x 302
Docket Number: No. 03-15576; D.C. No. CV-01-01761-MCE
Parties: Andrew Rick LOPEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 73
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
Andrew Rick LOPEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-15576.
D.C. No. CV-01-01761-MCE.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2003.
Decided Aug. 20, 2003.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Andrew Rick Lopez appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, we review de novo, see Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
Lopez contends his due process and equal protection rights were violated by the California Department of Corrections' determination that he had committed an administrative violation. These contentions are not cognizable in habeas petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (allowing habeas petitions to be heard only if a prisoner is in custody in violation of federal law); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir.1997) (explaining that if an inmates' challenge does not necessarily imply the invalidity of their convictions or continuing confinement, the proper remedy is through a 1983 claim, not a habeas petition).
Because Lopez has not alleged any errors regarding his state felony sentence, the district court properly dismissed Lopez's habeas petition.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.