Ashby

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Michael Eugene Ashby appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. -§ 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Ashby contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition under Rule 9(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Although Rule 9(a) was repealed before Ashby filed his § 2254 *643 petition, see Advisory Comm. Notes to 200k Amendments, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, see Buckley v. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688, 694 (9th Cir.2006). We conclude that the claims Ashby raises in his habeas petition and in his opening brief lack merit.

In his § 2254 petition, Ashby claimed that the Pierce County Jail’s denial of earned early release credits violated his due process rights. The Washington Supreme Court denied relief because Ash-by could not establish that the denial of credits was erroneous. We conclude that this decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Nor was the…