T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T PA TRI CK K I N CH LER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. KA T HR YN S HE A, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 12- 35710 D . C. N o . 3 : 1 2 - c v - 0 5 1 3 0 - RBL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R ona l d B . L e i ght on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 16, 2013 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , IK U T A , an d W A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W as hi ng t on st at e pri soner P atri ck K i nchl erappeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im unde rF e de r a l Rul e of

C i vi l P r oc e dur e 12( b) ( 6) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 

# FI LED APR23 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 35710 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , Kenda l l v. V isa U . S. A . , Inc. , 518 F . 3d 1042, 1 0 4 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y d i sm i ssed K i n ch l er’ s d u e p ro cess cl ai m s b ecau se hi s r e m ova l f

r om hi s C orr e c t i ona l I ndus tr i e s j ob a nd t e m por a ry e xc l us i on f r om the “G B u ild in g ” d id n o t im p lic a te ac o n s titu tio n a llyp r o te c te d lib e rtyo rp r o p e rty in te r e s t. Se e B d. o

f R eg e n ts v . R o th , 40 8 U . S . 56 4, 56 9-70 (197 2) (procedural p r o te c tio n s o f

du e p r o c e s s c lau s e a r e tr ig g e r e d o n lyw h e n th e r e is ac o g n iz ab le lib e rty o rp r o p e rty in te r e s t a t s ta k e ) ; Ch a p p e ll v . M a n de v ille , 706 F . 3d 1052, 1064 ( 9th C i r . 2013) ( “ [ T ] o f i nd avi ol a t i on of

as t a t e - c r e a t e d l i be rty i nt e r e s tthe ha r ds hi p i m pos e d on the pr i s one rm us tbe ‘ a typi c a l a nd s i gni f i c a nt. . . i n r e l a t i on t o the ordi naryi nci dent s of pri son l i fe . ’ ” ( ci t at i on om i tt ed)) ; se e al so W ei lbu rg v. Sh a p i ro , 488 F . 3d 1202, 1205 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( di s m i s s a l of apr o s e c om pl a i nt w i tho utl ea ve t o am end i s proper i f i ti s c l ear thatam endm entw ou l d b e f ut i l e) . To th e e x t e n tth a tK i n c h l e ri n t e n d e d t o r a i s e a n Ei g h th A me n d me n tc l a i m, hi s c om pl ai ntfa i l ed t o al l ege f ac t s s ho w i ng “ a deni al of the m i ni m al ci vi l i ze d m e a s ur e of

l i f e ’ s ne c e s s i t i e s ” a nd nothi ng s ugge s t s tha ti tc oul d be a m e nde d t o do s o . Ke e n a n v . H

a ll , 83 F . 3d 1083, 1089 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks and ci t at i on om i tt ed).12- 35710 3 W e do n otconsi der m att er s notspec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y r ai se d and ar gu ed in th e o p e n in g b r ie f

. Se e P adge t t

v . W r i ght , 587 F . 3d 983, 985 n. 2 ( 9th C i r . 2009) (percuri am ). AF F I RME D.