Case Name: Mark COLLINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-22
Citations: 463 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 09-55198
Parties: Mark COLLINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Mark COLLINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-55198.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 22, 2011.
Mark Collins, March Arb, CA, pro se.
Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Former California state prisoner Mark Collins appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Collins contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition for having failed to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Contrary to Collins's contention, the district court correctly concluded that Collins's claims are not cognizable under § 2254 because he fails to state facts supporting a claim challenging the legality or duration of confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); see also Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir.2010) ("[A pro se] petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of every eonceivable doubt[.]") Collins's motion to take judicial notice is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.