MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Daniel W. Womack appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging due process and equal protection claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Womack’s due process claim because his good time credits had been restored, and Womack’s other allegations did not give rise to a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (requiring “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” or a restraint that exceeds the prisoner’s sentence in “an unexpected manner” to state a liberty interest); Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (there is no Fourteenth Amendment liberty or property interest in prison employment).

The district court properly dismissed Womack’s equal protection claim because Womack failed to allege facts suggesting that he was intentionally treated differently from similarly situated inmates. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.