Steven Brooks v. Whitson;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
STEVEN BROOKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WHITSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17424
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00682-JAM-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
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,
FILED
OCT 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17424 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 of 2 --