NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE J.R. ESPINOZA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. D. DIAZ, Correctional Counselor I at California City Correctional Facility; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 15565
D.C. No. 1:17

- cv - 00338

- LJO

- SAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018 **
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Jose J.R. Espinoza appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from his classification hearing

. We have jurisdiction un der 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 15565

2000) ( dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) ( dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii))

. We
may a ffirm on any basis supported by the record, Hartmann v. Cal

. Dep ’ t of Corr.
& Rehab. , 707 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013) , and w e affirm

. To the extent that success on Espinoza’s due process claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, the district court properly
concluded that Espinoza’s claim is Heck

- barred because Espinoza failed to allege facts demonstrating that his sen tence has been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486

- 87 (1994); see also Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (a “claim for declaratory relief and money damages, based on allegations . . . that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed, is not cognizable under § 1983”)

. To the extent that success on Espinoza’s due process claim would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, dismissal was proper because Espinoza failed to allege facts sufficient to show how his classification caused an

“ atypical and significant hardship on [him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. ” Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995 ) ; Myron v. Terhune , 476 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007) ( concluding that prison regulations governing
inmate ’ s classification did not create a liberty interest because inmate failed to show that his raised classification level presented an “ atypical and significant3 18

- 15565

hardship ” or would “ invariably affect the duration of his sentence ” (c itation s and quotation marks omitted))

. C ontrary to Espinoza’s contention, Burnsworth v.
Gunderson , 179 F.3d 771 , 775 (9th Cir. 1999) is distinguishable because it dealt
with the expungement of prison discipline records. Dismissal of Espinoza’s equal prot ection claim was proper because Espinoza failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Barren , 152 F.3d at 1194 ( setting forth element s of an e qual p rotection claim); see also Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief)

. AFFIRMED.