Edward G. Ontiveros v. R. J. SUBIA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EDWARD G. ONTIVEROS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R. J. SUBIA; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-15660
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02456-GEB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Edward G. Ontiveros appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We
FILED
NOV 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the district1
court properly dismissed Ontiveros’ petition for lack of jurisdiction.
09-15660 2
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.1
The district court did not err in dismissing Ontiveros’ habeas petition for
lack of jurisdiction. The district court correctly concluded that Ontiveros could not
proceed under § 2254 because he received only a “counseling chrono” and did not
lose any sentencing credit as a result of the disciplinary decision. See Ramirez v.
Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that “habeas jurisdiction is
absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison
condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”)
Ontiveros’ Rule 60(b) motion, filed on October 7, 2010, is construed in part
as a renewed motion for appointment of counsel, and in part as a request for
judicial notice. The request for judicial notice is granted. The requests for oral
argument and appointment of counsel are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --