Yarborough

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Jason Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004) (summary judgment); Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 432 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal for failure to state a claim). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s claim that defendant Rouston placed Smith on an exercise yard with deliberate indifference to his safety because Smith failed to allege that he was physically injured. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (barring damages claims for mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of physical injury).

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s claim that defendants Walton and Rouston violated his due process rights in his disciplinary hearing because, even assuming the existence of a protected liberty interest, procedural safeguards were met and “some evidence” supported the prison disciplinary decisions. See…