MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Kenyon Darrell Brown appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district courts dismissal of a habeas petition, see Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.
In his petition, Brown alleged that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation discriminates against him by denying him equal access to opportunities to earn good conduct credits and participate in rehabilitative programs. He also alleged that, in light of the coronavirus and the conditions in his prison, he is at high risk and cannot access to rehabilitative and educational programs. These claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” because success on the claims would not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed the petition.
We treat Browns argument that he is entitled to resentencing as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
Appellants motions to proceed in forma pauperis are granted.
Appellants motions for appointment of counsel, and all other pending motions, are denied.
AFFIRMED.