FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL LOPEZ, No. 10-15995
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02104-RCF
v.
MEMORANDUM *
R. DION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Raymond C. FISHER, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rafael Lopez appeals pro se from the district court's
summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison
officials deprived him of his personal property in violation of his due process
rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court's grant of summary judgment, Midwater Trawlers Coop. v. Dep't of
Commerce, 393 F.3d 994, 1002 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
In his complaint, Lopez alleges that defendants violated his due process
rights when they ceased storing his property after he was reclassified. Lopez
contends that defendants were not authorized to donate his property without a
hearing and that prison regulations required that his property be stored until his
return to the general population.
“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee
does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for
the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); see also Barnett
v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) ( “[N]egligent or intentional
deprivation of a prisoner's property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the
state has an adequate post deprivation remedy.”). We have specifically held that the
California Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 810 et seq., provides an adequate
postdeprivation remedy for loss of property. See Barnett, 31 F.3d at 816-17.
Therefore, because Lopez had an adequate state law tort remedy for the taking of
his electronic property, he did not allege a cognizable due process claim and his
complaint was properly dismissed.
AFFIRMED.