NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIE BOLDS, No. 16-15592
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01754-BAM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J. CAVAZOS, Chief Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barbara A. McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 11, 2017***
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Willie Bolds appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging procedural due process
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
Bolds 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).
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 Bolds’s due process claim arising from
the alleged deprivation of his property because Bolds failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that he was not provided with the process he was due. See Nev.
Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (a prison violates
the due process clause when it “prescribes and enforces forfeitures of property
without . . . competent procedural protections”).
To the extent that Bolds alleged any other due process claim related to the
deprivation of his property, the district court properly dismissed these claims
because this court affirmed the dismissal of these claims without leave to amend in
Bolds v. Cavados, 599 F. App’x 307, 307-08 (9th Cir. 2015). See S. Or. Barter
Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The law of the case
doctrine . . . precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided
by . . . a higher court in the same case.”).
Contrary to Bolds’s contention that the district court’s construction of his
objections as a motion for reconsideration was improper, Bolds consented to a
2 16-15592
magistrate judge and therefore he was not entitled to file objections to the
magistrate judge’s ruling.
We reject as meritless Bolds’s contentions that the district court misled
plaintiff, failed to comply with this court’s order in Bolds I, failed to consider
allegations in the third amended complaint, and lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-15592