Case ID: f-appx_31/html/0557-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymond Ludwig FROST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Fife SYMINGTON, III; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-16054. D.C. No. CV-96-00346.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 11, 2002 .
    Decided March 20, 2002.
    Before CANBY, BEEZER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raymond Ludwig Frost, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo; Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 353 (9th Cir.1999), and affirm.

With respect to his claim that he did not receive notice when pornographic magazines were held, we agree with the district court that Frost failed to identify defendants who personally participated in the alleged constitutional violation. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978). We also agree with the district court’s analysis that the “law of the case” doctrine did not preclude it from addressing this issue. See United States v. Cote, 51 F.3d 178, 181 (9th Cir.1995).

With respect to his claim that he did not receive notice when compact discs were returned to Bertelsmann Music Group, we agree with the district court that Frost had an adequate post-deprivation remedy available to him to address the problem in the specific circumstances of this situation. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam).

We have considered Frost’s contentions regarding equitable relief and monetary damages and, because we have resolved the merits of the appeal in favor of defendants, we reject these contentions.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.