NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
CHRIS B. GRINDLING, No. 11-17044
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01496-FJM-
MHB
v.
TODD THOMAS, et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Hawaii state prisoner Chris B. Grindling appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition alleging condition of
confinement claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2254. We
*
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).
review de novo, Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.
Because Grindling should have brought his claims in a civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 rather than as a habeas petition, the district court properly dismissed
Grindling’s action without prejudice. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643
(2004) (“constitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner’s
confinement . . . fall outside of [the] core [of habeas relief] and may be brought
pursuant to § 1983”).
Grindling’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-17044