MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner William M. Ob-erpriller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, 1 and we affirm.

The district court correctly concluded that Oberpriller could not proceed under § 2254 because he received only a “counseling chrono” for minor misconduct. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence”). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Oberpriller’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.