a court must accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. at 892-93 (internal quotation marks omitted). This court “may affirm on any ground supported by the record.” Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1076-77 (9th Cir.2003). The denial of leave to amend is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 854 (9th Cir.2003). The district court properly determined that Dennison failed to state due process claims in Counts I and II. The Due Process Clause provides procedural protections to inmates who can establish that a liberty interest is at stake. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005). The Supreme Court has held that “the touchstone of 00) (<HOLDING>); Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th
holding claim is cognizable holding that placement in disciplinary segregation does not implicate a liberty interest because it falls within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a sentence holding that the inmate had no cognizable due process claim because he had no liberty interest in being free from disciplinary segregation holding thirty days in disciplinary segregation does not rise to the level of punishment invoking the due process clause holding that an inmate had no liberty interest in avoiding transfer to a more restrictive facility