Sweet

MEMORANDUM

Hung Ha appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and state law violations in connection with several incidents that occurred while he was exercising barefoot or in sandals at U.C. Berkeley athletic facilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riv erside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ha’s First Amendment claims because Ha’s conduct was not “inherently expressive.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 66 , 126 S.Ct. 1297 , 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006).

The district court properly dismissed Ha’s Fourteenth Amendment claims because Ha did not allege a constitutionally protected liberty interest to give rise to a due process claim. See Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist., 623 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir.2010) (“To succeed on a substantive or procedural due process claim, the…