Chappell

MEMORANDUM **

Rex Chappell, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his civil rights by falsifying disciplinary reports after he refused to cooperate with a urinalysis drug test. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Chappell’s claims that defendants’ conduct resulted in the revocation of his good time credits, see Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir.1997), because a challenge to the validity of a judgment or continuing confinement must be brought as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, not a section 1983 action, see Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023,1024 (9th Cir.1997).

The district court properly dismissed Chappell’s due process claims, because under the circumstances as alleged, requiring Chappell to take a urinalysis test for drugs did not constitute an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary *33…