Mikota

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Eric Mikota appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials denied him due process when they punished him with 10 days of “isolation” for possessing tobacco and matches. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

Mikota does not allege in his complaint that his isolation “impose[d] an ‘atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,’ ” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 448 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 , 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)), and Mikota declined the district court’s invitation to amend his complaint. Consequently, the district court properly determined that Mikota failed to state a claim because he did not allege a liberty interest in being free from disei-plinary “isolation.” See Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 457 (9th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by…