Munro

MEMORANDUM **

James Michael Munro, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the California Department of Corrections’ (“CDC”) administrative bulletin banning sexually explicit materials containing frontal nudity is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly held that the CDC’s administrative bulletin did not violate Munro’s First Amendment rights because it sought to maintain security, reduce sexual harassment of female guards, and prevent a hostile work environment. See Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054,1063 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (holding that a prison regulation banning sexually explicit materials depicting frontal nudity did not violate inmate’s First Amendment rights because it was rationally related to legitimate penological interests).

The district court properly dismissed Munro’s due process claim because depriving him of sexually explicit materials did not impose an “atypical and…