Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0679-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Miguel RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 11-56989.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 14, 2012.
    Jose Miguel Rodriguez, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Quisteen Shum, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, 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 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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.