NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO, No. 16-15101
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00975-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RUIZ, C/O; BOYD, C/O,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Stanley A. Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 11, 2017***
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims
arising out of the unauthorized deprivation of his personal property. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
Trujillo consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
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. Hamilton v. Brown, 630
F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s federal due process claim
because Trujillo had an adequate postdeprivation remedy under California law.
See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“[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.”); Barnett v.
Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (“California [l]aw provides an
adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”).
The district court properly dismissed any state law claim because Trujillo
failed to allege timely compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. See
Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The
California Tort Claims Act requires, as a condition precedent to suit against a
public entity, the timely presentation of a written claim . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-15101