Kisasi David Liggins v. ERIC ARNOLD, Acting Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KISASI DAVID LIGGINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ERIC ARNOLD, Acting Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15151
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00257-JAM-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kisasi David Liggins, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-15151
(9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Liggins’s due process claim because
Liggins failed to allege facts sufficient to show a protected liberty interest. See
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85 (1995) (a prisoner has no federal or state
protected liberty interest when the sanction imposed neither extends the length of
his sentence nor imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d
1071, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2003) (due process procedural protections “adhere only
when the disciplinary action implicates a protected liberty interest”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --