Russell

MEMORANDUM **

Pro se petitioner-appellant Brian James Russell, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that he was illegally removed from his prison job in violation of his federal constitutional rights and state law. On appeal, Russell argues that the district court erred in ruling that: 1) he did not have a liberty interest in his job; and 2) his challenge to the disciplinary proceedings against him attacked the validity of the punishment imposed and, therefore, was not cognizable under § 1983. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, after de novo review, we affirm.

The district court, adopting the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, ruled that Russell did not state a claim for the deprivation of his constitutional rights arising from the loss of his prison job because he did not have a protected liberty interest in his prison employment. On appeal, Russell argues that he did have a liberty interest in his job because it was not a typical prison job. Regardless of the nature of his position, Russell did not have a protected liberty interest in participating in a work program…