Jose Rodriguez v. Matthew Cate
Jose Miguel RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Respondent—Appellee
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Sandra S. Ikuta, Marsha S. Berzon
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, No. 11-56989 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02651-AJB v. MEMORANDUM * MATTHEW CATE, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 8, 2012 ** Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jose Miguel Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez’s petition because the court lacked jurisdiction to consider his claims that the restitution order imposed as part of his sentence violated his due process and Eight Amendment rights. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2010) (“§ 2254(a)
does not confer jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s in-custody challenge to a restitution order imposed as part of a criminal sentence”).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-56989