¶2 Randy Bailey, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s *463 summary judgment for Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
¶3 The district court properly concluded that Defendants are entitled qualified immunity because Bailey’s right to due process before assignment to the Security Maximum Unit was not clearly established at the time he was in the Unit. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005) (holding that assignment to a supermax facility can invoke a liberty interest and noting, in 2005, that “Courts of Appeals have not reached consistent conclusions for identifying the baseline from which to measure what is atypical and significant in any particular prison system”); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (holding that without atypical and significant hardship, due process is not violated).
¶4 AFFIRMED.