![[U] Green v. Armstrong - United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit](https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Publication/v4/b5/93/06/b593068d-aff1-357c-9c7a-123e950e941f/1994090042548.jpg/270x270bb.jpg)
MEMORANDUM* Nevada state prisoner Frederick L. Green appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners alleging that his constitutional rights were violated during his parole revocation proceedings. The district court construed Green's action as a habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3217 (1990), and we affirm. To the extent that a prisoner challenges ""the fact or duration of his confinement"" the complaint will be construed as a habeas corpus petition, and to the extent the ""complaint seeks damages from civil rights violations"" the complaint will be construed as a civil rights action. Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991). Where a prisoner challenges the manner in which his sentence was executed, the action is construed as a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. at 331 (prisoner sought earlier parole by challenging decision not to credit his time in state custody).
