Luther G. Jamison v. Gary Swarthout

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUTHER G. JAMISON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GARY SWARTHOUT,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-17096
D.C. No. 3:07-CV-01782-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Luther G. Jamison appeals from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2005).
FILED
SEP 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17096 2
Jamison contends that the Board of Prison Terms’s 2004 decision finding
him unsuitable for parole violates California law and is not supported by some
evidence. Even assuming that his petition is timely, Jamison is not entitled to
relief. First, the record reflects that Jamison received all process that was due. See
Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011) (per curiam). Second,
Jamison’s challenges to the application of California law are not cognizable in
federal habeas proceedings. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990)
(“[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law[.]”); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(a).
We decline to consider Jamison’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
raised for the first time on appeal, because it relates to counsel’s performance
subsequent to the claims raised in the district court.
Peter A. Furst’s motion to withdraw as Jamison’s counsel is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --