Witherow

MEMORANDUM **

John Witherow, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging various disciplinary proceedings and the surveillance of his mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.2005) (summary judgment and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Witherow’s due process claims related to the April 4, 2000 disciplinary hearing because Witherow did not allege sufficient facts indicating that his resulting segregation posed an “atypical and significant hardship,” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 , 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), Witherow does not have a liberty interest in being housed at a particular prison, see Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225-27 , 96 S.Ct. 2532 , 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976), and his claim that he was improperly denied parole is Heck-barred, see Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir.1997). Witherow’s contention that he had a liberty interest…