Mark Jones v. Edmund Brown, Jr.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Mark Anthony Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Jones is eligible for re-sentencing under Proposition 36 and that Cal.Penal Code § 1170.126 is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011), and we'affirm.
The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Jones’ action seeking in-junctive and declaratory relief because it *385 challenged the fact and duration of his state criminal sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-89, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Mark Anthony JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Governor; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Status
- Unpublished