Case Name: Theodore ANDREWS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathleen DICKINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-24
Citations: 481 F. App'x 381
Docket Number: No. 11-17396
Parties: Theodore ANDREWS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathleen DICKINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 381–381

Head Matter:
Theodore ANDREWS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathleen DICKINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-17396.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 24, 2012.
Theodore Andrews, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Theodore Andrews appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Andrews contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. The district court correctly concluded that Andrews's petition challenging his "R" custody designation failed to raise a federally cognizable claim for which habeas relief may be granted. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.