Richard Thomas v. James Rowland, Director, Department of Corrections

990 F.2d 1260 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Richard THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James ROWLAND, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-56186. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 10, 1993. * Decided March 15, 1993. Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and FARRIS and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Richard Thomas, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thomas contends the district court erred by dismissing his claims that he was denied due process and "effective appellate review." We review de novo the district court's decision on a habeas petition. Ortberg v. Moody, 961 F.2d 135, 137 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 225 (1992). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. 3 Thomas contends that he was denied his right to due process because the…