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:T417,MEMORANDUM Former California state prisoner Mark Collins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Collins contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition for having failed to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Contrary to Collins’s contention, the district court correctly concluded that Collins’s claims are not cognizable under § 2254 because he fails to state facts supporting a claim challenging the legality or duration of confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1827 , 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); see also Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir.2010) (“[A pro se] petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of every eonceivable doubt[.]”) Collins’s motion to take judicial notice is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T444,

MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Mark Collins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Collins contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition for having failed to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Contrary to Collins’s contention, the district court correctly concluded that Collins’s claims are not cognizable under § 2254 because he fails to state facts supporting a claim challenging the legality or duration of confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1827 , 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); see also Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir.2010) (“[A pro se] petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of every eonceivable doubt[.]”) Collins’s motion to take judicial notice is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.