Sabil Mujahid v. Debbie Miller

615 F. App'x 458
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 2, 2015·No. 13-36014·Unpublished

Opinion

*459 MEMORANDUM *

Sabil M. Mujahid (Mujahid), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In the petition, Mujahid challenged a disciplinary proceeding finding him guilty of disobeying a direct order to cease talking with another inmate.

Mujahid is challenging conditions of his confinement that occurred some time in the fairly distant past, in a facility where he is no longer housed. In addition, Muja-hid concedes that he lost no good-time credits because of his disciplinary segregation. Accordingly, because Mujahid does not challenge the duration of his confinement or an ongoing increased restriction on the conditions of his confinement, habe-as relief is not available to address Muja-hid’s challenge. See Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992, 999-1000 (9th Cir.2015) (“[Hjabeas jurisdiction is available only for claims that, if successful, would have some shortening effect on the length of a person’s custody...id. at 1004 (same for claims involving “greater restrictions of ... liberty”); see also Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n. 13, 131 S.Ct. 1289,179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011) (“[Wjhen a prisoner’s claim would not necessarily spell speedier release, that claim does not lie at the core of habeas corpus, and may be brought, if at all, under § 1983....”) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sabil Mujahid v. Debbie Miller, 615 F. App'x 458 (9th Cir. 2015).

615 F. App'x 458 (Sabil Mujahid v. Debbie Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Damous Nettles v. Randy Grounds
788 F.3d 992 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Skinner v. Switzer
179 L. Ed. 2d 233 (Supreme Court, 2011)