Jose Miguel Rodriguez v. Matthew Cate

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MATTHEW CATE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-56989
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02651-AJB
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-56989 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 of 2 --