Kevin A. Johnson v. JAMES E. HALL, Warden

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).
AH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN A. JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES E. HALL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56014
D.C. No. CV-05-02627-GHK
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kevin A. Johnson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AH/Research 07-56014
Johnson contends that he was denied due process during his first
administrative hearing. This claim is moot because Johnson asserted the same
claim in a later proceeding, received a new hearing, and was afforded all process
that was due during the second hearing.
The district court correctly held that neither of Johnson’s remaining claims
are addressable through federal habeas corpus proceedings. See Ramirez v.
Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26 (9th
Cir. 1989).
We do not address the state’s procedural default and exhaustion arguments
because Johnson’s claims are clearly without merit. See Franklin v. Johnson, 290
F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --