
    David C. PATKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. K. HOLLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-15818
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 30, 2017
    Erin Jolene Radekin, Attorney, Law Office of Erin Radekin, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner David C. Pat-kins appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ha-beas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

In his petition, Patkins challenges the outcome of a 2012 disciplinary hearing that resulted in a 30-day credit forfeiture, arguing that the hearing officer’s finding that Patkins committed a violation was not supported by “some evidence.” Because Pat-kins is serving an indeterminate sentence of 59 years to life, he will not be released until the Board of Parole Hearings determines that he is suitable for parole. See Cal. Penal Code § 3041. Moreover, because he was convicted of second-degree murder, he is not entitled to accrue credits against his sentence. See Cal. Penal Code § 2933.2. Therefore, success on his habeas claim would not necessarily lead to Pat-kins’s immediate or earlier release from confinement and the district court correctly concluded that it lacked habeas jurisdiction. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 645, 196 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     