Griffin

MEMORANDUM **

Montana state prisoner Calvin Z. Griffin appeals the dismissal of his action, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , alleging violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses by warden Mike Mahoney and related defendants. We review a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A de novo. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

Due process claims require that the plaintiff suffer “a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest.” Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sell. Dist., 149 F.3d 971 , 982 (9th Cir.1998). Griffin’s first claim, founded on the allegation that he has been unlawfully denied sexual offender treatment while in prison, does not implicate a protected interest. Sexual offenders serving criminal sentences do not have a constitutional right to rehabilitative treatment. Ba lla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 470 (9th Cir.1989). Nor does the delay Griffin has experienced in being admitted to the program constitute an “atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” making it insufficient to establish a liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.…