Amendment requires that no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That is, even if Defendants may deprive SVP tted under California’s SVP Act has a right to procedural due process before being force-medicated in non-emergency situations. Next, Plaintiffs allege that reduction of their access levels decreases, or in some cases eliminates, the opportunity to move around the facility without escorts and that it affects their right to other privileges. The reduction of an SVP’s access level is similar to the transfer of prisoners from the general prison population to administrative segregation. Such a transfer may deprive the prisoner of a state-created liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813,
holding that liberty interests implicating the due process clause are generally limited to freedom from restraint which  imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life holding that prisoner had no constitutionallyprotected liberty interest in prisoninmate classification system process where director of department of corrections retained unfettered discretion in classification and housing of prisoners holding that 30day segregated confinement in hawaii penitentiary did not present such atypical hardship so as to create liberty interest holding that a prisoner has no constitutionallybased liberty interest in a particular prison classification  because an inmate is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison holding that a statecreated liberty interest in ones classification may exist where classification imposes atypical and significant hardship