Gordon

MEMORANDUM ***

Marvin R. Gordon, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment for defendants in Ms 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of *68 his right to due process and his right of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir.2001) (judgment on the pleadings); Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (summary judgment), and affirm.

Gordon contends that the district court erred by granting in part the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings due to Gordon’s failure to exhaust certain claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). We reject this contention. We agree with the district court that the only exhausted claim in Gordon’s second amended complaint was his due process claim relating to his confinement to quarters from October 15, 1998 to December 15, 1998. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling on defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 , 121 S.Ct. 1819 , 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001).

Gordon also contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment…