Case Name: Carmon E. WARREN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darrell G. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-26
Citations: 372 F. App'x 735
Docket Number: No. 07-16463
Parties: Carmon E. WARREN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darrell G. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 735–736

Head Matter:
Carmon E. WARREN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darrell G. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-16463.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 26, 2010.
Carmon E. Warren, Delano, CA, pro se.
Maria G. Chan, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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 Carmon E. Warren appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Warren contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. This contention lacks merit because Warren has not demonstrated that the reversal of his disciplinary conviction is likely to accelerate his release from prison. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.