Case Name: Kisasi David LIGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric ARNOLD, Acting Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-05
Citations: 698 F. App'x 474
Docket Number: No. 17-15151
Parties: Kisasi David LIGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric ARNOLD, Acting Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 474–474

Head Matter:
Kisasi David LIGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric ARNOLD, Acting Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15151
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
OCTOBER 5, 2017
KISASI DAVID LIGGINS, CSP-California State Prison (Corcoran), pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kisasi David Liggins, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Liggins's due process claim because Lig-gins failed to allege facts sufficient to show a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (a prisoner has no federal or state protected liberty interest when the sanction imposed neither extends the length of his sentence nor imposes an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life"); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1077-78 (9th Cir, 2003) (due process procedural protections "adhere only when the disciplinary action implicates a protected liberty interest").
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.