FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN BROOKS, No. 10-17424
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00682-JAM-
DAD
v.
WHITSON; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
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,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
2 10-17424