
    Chris B. GRINDLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Todd THOMAS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17044.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 26, 2012.
    Christopher Grindling, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hawaii state prisoner Chris B. Grindling appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition alleging condition of confinement claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2254. We review de novo, Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Because Grindling should have brought his claims in a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than as a habeas petition, the district court properly dismissed Grindling’s action without prejudice. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643, 124 S.Ct. 2117, 158 L.Ed.2d 924 (2004) (“constitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement ... fall outside of [the] core [of habeas relief] and may be brought pursuant to § 1983”).

Grindling’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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