NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROOSEVELT REED, No. 15-35497
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05800-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ELEANOR VERNELL; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Roosevelt Reed appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
violations by prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Reed’s procedural
due process claim concerning deductions from his prison postage subaccount
because Reed failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he
lacked an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Washington law. See Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“[A] . . . 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.”); Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 918 (9th Cir.
2000) (holding that Washington State Department of Corrections’ grievance
process and Washington State’s tort claim process are adequate post-deprivation
remedies for allegedly improper deductions from a prisoner’s account).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Reed’s substantive
due process claim because Reed failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether defendants’ conduct was egregious or shocks the conscience. County of
Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845-49 (1998) (substantive due process
challenge must establish “egregious official conduct” that “shocks the
conscience”).
Defendants’ request, set forth in the answering brief, that this court
determine that the appeal is frivolous and constitutes a strike under 28 U.S.C.
2 15-35497
§ 1915(e)(2), (g), is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-35497