# Mark Jones v. Edmund Brown, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 4, 2014 · 586 F. App'x 384

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2757787

## Case

- **Full name:** Mark Anthony JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Governor; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 4, 2014
- **Citations:** 586 F. App'x 384
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Leavy, Fisher, Smith
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2757787

## Opinion text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 04 2014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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2757787. Public record. Not legal advice.