FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM M. OBERPRILLER, No. 10-15065
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05215-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
C. NOLL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner William M. Oberpriller appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
1
We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the district
court properly dismissed Oberpriller’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.
2 10-15065