Opinion
No. 11-56989 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02651-AJB
08-14-2012
JOSE MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MATTHEW CATE, Respondent - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
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 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.