MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Andrew Rick Lopez appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, which challenges a prison disciplinary finding. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.1
Lopez filed this case as a § 2254 habeas petition, but his petition challenges a prison disciplinary finding for lack of evidence and seeks expungement of his prison record, injunctive relief, and damages. These *64allegations alone do not create a habeas claim. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 388 (1994) (stating that a habeas corpus claim exists when a state prisoner “challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release”) (discussing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973)). Thus, we affirm the district court on the grounds that Lopez’s petition does not state a claim cognizable on habeas.2
AFFIRMED.