NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLAUDIO BERNARDINO, No. 17-56682
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01143-H-BGS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SANDOVAL, Correctional Officer;
MOSLEY, Correctional Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Claudio Bernardino appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims
arising from the search of his cell. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
*
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).
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194
(9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bernardino’s access-to-courts claim
because Bernardino failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an
actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-55 (1996) (requiring factual
allegations showing actual injury in order to state an access-to-courts claim).
The district court properly dismissed Bernardino’s medical deliberate
indifference claim because Bernardino failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his vision needs. See Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth elements for a deliberate
indifference claim).
The district court properly dismissed Bernardino’s property deprivation
claim because Bernardino failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a meaningful
post-deprivation remedy was unavailable to him. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
517, 533 (1984) (holding that an intentional deprivation of property does not
violate due process if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy 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.”).
2 17-56682
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bernardino leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of
review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be
futile).
Bernardino’s request for miscellaneous relief (Docket Entry No. 15) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-56682