Jacobs v. Director of California Department of Corrections

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV, No. 11-15269 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01369-LJO- GBC v. DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM * DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. George E. Jacobs, IV, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that * 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). unauthorized deductions from his inmate trust account for payment of his court filing fees violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Jacobs’s action because Jacobs had an adequate post-deprivation 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) (per curiam) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.” (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895)). Jacobs’s request for judicial notice is denied. Jacobs’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 11-15269