MARK JONES V. EDMUND BROWN, JR., No. 14-15035 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED DEC 04 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARK ANTHONY JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-15035 D.C.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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
