William Oberpriller v. C. Noll

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM M. OBERPRILLER, No. 10-15065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