22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T42d,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner William M. Ob-erpriller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. The district court correctly concluded that Oberpriller could not proceed under § 2254 because he received only a “counseling chrono” for minor misconduct. 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”). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Oberpriller’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the district court properly dismissed Oberpriller’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.24:T45a,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner William M. Ob-erpriller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

The district court correctly concluded that Oberpriller could not proceed under § 2254 because he received only a “counseling chrono” for minor misconduct. 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”). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Oberpriller’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the district court properly dismissed Oberpriller’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.