Mark Collins v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California

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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK COLLINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
Governor of California,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-55198
D.C. No. 5:08-cv-01727-DSF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Mark Collins appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without
prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-55198 2
Collins contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition for
having failed to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Contrary to
Collins’s contention, the district court correctly concluded that Collins’s claims are
not cognizable under § 2254 because he fails to state facts supporting a claim
challenging the legality or duration of confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411
U.S. 475, 484 (1973); see also Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[A pro se] petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of every conceivable doubt[.]”)
Collins’s motion to take judicial notice is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --