The following excerpt is from Ethridge v. Childs, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01962-LJO-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. 2011):
Being confined to one's cell does not necessarily rise to the level of atypical and significant hardship. Id.; see also May, 109 F.3d at 565 (convicted inmate's due process claim fails because he has no liberty interest in freedom from state action taken within sentence imposed and administrative segregation falls within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a sentence); see also Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (plaintiff's placement and retention in the special housing unit was within range of confinement normally expected by inmates in relation to ordinary incidents of prison life and, therefore, plaintiff had no protected liberty interest in being free from confinement in the special housing unit). Without establishing the existence of a protected liberty interest, plaintiff may not pursue a claim based on denial of due process.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.