Cdcr

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Robin Gillen Starr appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C, § 1988 action alleging constitutional claims related to his sentencing and incarceration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.' § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

To the extent that Starr seeks release from prison, or modification or commutation of' his sentence, dismissal was proper because his “exclusive remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam); see also Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Vill., 723 F.2d 675 , 681-82 (9th Cir.1984) (“If a prisoner seeks both release from confinement and damages or injunctive relief in an action under § 1983, the court may properly dismiss the former claim while retaining the latter.”). However, because the district court dismissed the action with prejudice, we vacate the judgment and remand with…