MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jose Luis Morales appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his 2006 prison disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 323 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) *394 (issue preclusion). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal was proper because the state court’s denial of Morales’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his prison disciplinary proceedings and placement in the Security Housing Unit precluded Morales from relitigating the same issues in a § 1983 action. See Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1347 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[B]ecause of the nature of a state habeas proceeding, a decision actually rendered should preclude an identical issue from being relitigated in a subsequent § 1983 action if the state habeas court afforded a full and fair opportunity for the issue to be heard and determined under federal standards.”).

AFFIRMED.