Kristian Shane Curry, Texas prisoner # 1333254, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court concluded that his challenge to the denial of mandatory supervision should have been raised in habeas. In his complaint, Curry had argued that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (the Board) had denied him mandatory supervision in excess of its authority and, by doing so, had “stripped” him of his good time and work time credits. In his request for relief, Curry asks that his credits be applied and that he be released. Because Curry’s requested relief is immediate release to mandatory supervision, he is calling into question the validity or duration of his confinement, which should be raised in habeas. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005). Although Curry asserts that he must obtain a declaratory judgment that the Board’s actions were unconstitutional before seeking release through a habeas proceeding, a habeas petition is an appropriate means of challenging the constitutionality of a prisoner’s custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Curry also argues the merits of the claims he raised in his postjudgment motion to amend. The district court denied the motion because the final judgment had been entered. As Curry does not identify any error in the district court’s analysis, he has not established that he is entitled to relief. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Curry has not established that the district court abused its discretion in denying his postjudgment motion. See Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864-65 (5th Cir. 2003). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.