Testo completo
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
THEODORE ANDREWS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-17396
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01081-DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-17396 2
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 (1973).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
