Boyce

MEMORANDUM **

Antonneo R. Boyce, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his parole hearing and classification. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969 , 973 (9th Cir.2004), and for abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Boyce’s due process claim against the parole board defendants because he failed to allege any constitutional violation arising from the parole board’s consideration of a supplemental report. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 915 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that due process requirements are satisfied if some evidence supports parole board decision and the evidence has some indicia of reliability).

The district court properly dismissed Boyce’s due process claim against Schriro because inmates have no inherent liberty interest in their classification by prison officials. See Frost v.…