MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Aaron L. Stri-bling appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. 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.

The district court properly dismissed Stribling’s due process claim involving a rules violation because Stribling failed to allege facts sufficient to show a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (a prisoner has no federal or state protected liberty interest when the sanction imposed neither extends *973 the length of his sentence nor imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to' be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in severing the excessive force claims against defendants Blessing, DeFa-zio, and Guffee because Stribling failed to demonstrate that these claims arose out of the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and involve a “question of law or fact common to all defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); see also Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth standard of review and explaining the requirements for permissive joinder).

AFFIRMED.