Enrique Diaz v. B. Coll;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ENRIQUE DIAZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
B. COLL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16566
D.C. No. 1:02-cv-06353-OWW-
WMW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Enrique Diaz, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations in connection with disciplinary proceedings and his classification. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes,
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16566 2
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we may affirm on any basis supported by
the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Diaz’s claims because Diaz has not
alleged that his confinement, whether administrative or disciplinary, presented “the
type of atypical, significant deprivation [that] might conceivably create a liberty
interest.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 448 (alteration in original).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --