Norman Harold Allen, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Samuel Lewis, Director of Adoc, Individually and Officialcapacities; F. Fehey, Sgt., Official and Individualcapacity; J.c. Keeney, Assistant Director Adoc, Officialand Individual Capacities, Defendants-appellees, 103 F.3d 137 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Arizona state prisoner Norman Harold Allen appeals pro se the district court's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) dismissal of his action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging prison officials violated his due process rights when they entered erroneous information about him in the prison computer system. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

To state a cognizable due process claim under section 1983, an inmate must demonstrate that the alleged unlawful conduct imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995).

Here, Allen alleges that prison officials erroneously indicated in his prison file that he had been disciplined for "possession of narcotics" rather than "possession of drug paraphernalia." He contends that this error could be used by authorities in Louisiana during his parole revocation proceedings to increase his sentence. Allen concedes in his reply brief, however, that thus far, no prison officials have actually relied on the "error" to his detriment. Allen, therefore, has failed to demonstrate how his prison disciplinary file has been used to impose an atypical and significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Sandin, 115 S. Ct. at 2301. Because Allen could not state a cognizable due process claim, the district court properly dismissed his complaint without leave to amend. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).¹  Accordingly, we dismiss Allen's appeal for failure to state a claim. See Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 1996).

DISMISSED.