FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES E. BRYANT, No. 09-17055
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01239-BTM-
CAB
v.
A. L. PINEDA, Correctional Lieutenant, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding **
Submitted August 23, 2010 ***
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
James E. Bryant, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal due
process and state law claims arising from his placement in a single cell. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Sitting by designation.
***The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213
F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bryant’s due process claims related to
correctional officer Pineda’s failure to prevent or fully investigate other inmates’
alleged theft of Bryant’s property because Bryant had an adequate post-deprivation
remedy under California law. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.
1994) (per curiam) (random and unauthorized deprivations of property do not
violate due process when a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available).
The district court properly dismissed Bryant’s due process claims
concerning Pineda’s alleged failure to follow prison regulations in investigating
false accusations of sexual misconduct against Bryant because Bryant failed to
allege facts implicating a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472, 484 (1995) (protected liberty interest arises only when a restraint exceeds an
inmate’s sentence in “an unexpected manner” or imposes “atypical, significant
deprivation on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”).
The district court also properly declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Bryant’s state law claims after dismissing his federal claims
without leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-17055