
    Walter Shane LANGSTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Claudia FINN; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 11-15669.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 12, 2012.
    Walter Shane Langston, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Walter Shane Langston, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. 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 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

To the extent that Langston’s amended complaint contests the deprivation of time credits, the district court properly dismissed those claims as Hee/c-barred. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (challenge to loss of good-time credits not cognizable under § 1983); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (§ 1983 claims that necessarily challenge the fact or duration of confinement are barred).

To the extent that Langston’s amended complaint otherwise alleges a due process violation, the district court properly dismissed those claims because Langston failed to allege facts sufficient to show the deprivation of a protected liberty or property interest. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-71, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (threshold requirement to a due process claim is the showing of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest).

Langston’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Langston’s request to file a motion for default, received on May 1, 2012, is deemed filed and is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     