MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Juan Antonio Falcon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim arising from a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Falcon’s action because Falcon failed to allege facts implicating a liberty or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (protected liberty or property interest arises under due process clause when a restraint imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *530 See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as meritless Falcon’s contention that the district court improperly restricted his ability to plead his claim. '

AFFIRMED.