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.