FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THEODORE ANDREWS, No. 11-17396
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01081-DAD
v.
MEMORANDUM *
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
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.
*
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).
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 11-17396