Case Name: Steven BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-11
Citations: 453 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 10-17424
Parties: Steven BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 710–710

Head Matter:
Steven BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17424.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 11, 2011.
Steven Brooks, Delano, CA, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, 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
Steven Brooks, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Brooks failed to state sufficient facts to show that a protected liberty or property interest was at stake. See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir.2003) (due process protections "adhere only when the disciplinary action implicates a protected liberty interest in some unexpected [manner] or imposes an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Brooks's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.