Case Name: Michael W. AUGUST, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOVEY, Director of Adult Institutions; James E. Tilton, Secretary of the CDCR; Martin Veal, Warden; J. Martinez, Captain; P. Mirich, Lt.; M. Cry, Appeals Coordinator; S. Moreno, Associate Warden; K. Carroll, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-14
Citations: 408 F. App'x 114
Docket Number: No. 07-16844
Parties: Michael W. AUGUST, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOVEY, Director of Adult Institutions; James E. Tilton, Secretary of the CDCR; Martin Veal, Warden; J. Martinez, Captain; P. Mirich, Lt.; M. Cry, Appeals Coordinator; S. Moreno, Associate Warden; K. Carroll, Sergeant, Defendants—Appellants.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
Michael W. AUGUST, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOVEY, Director of Adult Institutions; James E. Tilton, Secretary of the CDCR; Martin Veal, Warden; J. Martinez, Captain; P. Mirich, Lt.; M. Cry, Appeals Coordinator; S. Moreno, Associate Warden; K. Carroll, Sergeant, Defendants—Appellants.
No. 07-16844.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 12, 2011.
Filed Jan. 14, 2011.
Michael W. August, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
David Carrasco, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and SILVERMAN, 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
August doesn't allege any condition that enhanced his sentence in "such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force," or imposed an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Ghana v. Pearce, 159 F.3d 1206, 1209 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)). His due process claim therefore fails.
REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.