Case Name: Jerry A. BURTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-23
Citations: 415 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 10-15668
Parties: Jerry A. BURTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 816–818

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.