The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 04 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK ANTHONY JONES, No. 14-15035
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05172-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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).
§ 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
injunctive and declaratory relief because it challenged the fact and duration of his
state criminal sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-89 (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.
2 14-15035