Chris B. Grindling v. Todd Thomas

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRIS B. GRINDLING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TODD THOMAS, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17044
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01496-FJM-
MHB
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17044 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 of 2 --