Patrick Kinchler v. Kathryn Shea

MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Patrick Kin-chler appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kinchler’s due process claims because his removal from his Correctional Industries job and temporary exclusion from the “G Building” did not implicate a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. See 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); Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1064 (9th Cir.2013) (“[T]o find a violation of a state-created liberty interest the hardship imposed on the prisoner must be ‘atypical and significant ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’ ” (citation omitted)); see also Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007) (dismissal of a pro se…