Leverett Grissom v. Mitchell
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Leverett Grissom, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by issuing him a written warning for hanging laundry from his cell bed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Grissom’s due process claims because Gris-som failed to allege facts showing that the issuance of a written warning for hanging laundry from his bunk imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 486 , 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (prison regulations do not provide a state-created liberty interest unless they impose an “atypical, significant deprivation” in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life); Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (procedural protections of due process clause are triggered only when there is a cognizable liberty or property interest at stake).