MEMORANDUM ***

Walter Shane Langston, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

To the extent that Langston’s amended complaint contests the deprivation of time *608 credits, the district court properly dismissed those claims as Hee/c-barred. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (challenge to loss of good-time credits not cognizable under § 1983); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (§ 1983 claims that necessarily challenge the fact or duration of confinement are barred).

To the extent that Langston’s amended complaint otherwise alleges a due process violation, the district court properly dismissed those claims because Langston failed to allege facts sufficient to show the deprivation of a protected liberty or property interest. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-71, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (threshold requirement to a due process claim is the showing of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest).

Langston’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Langston’s request to file a motion for default, received on May 1, 2012, is deemed filed and is denied.

AFFIRMED.