Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0380-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kevin R. SCHRUBB, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James TILTON, Secretary of CDCR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16823.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 27, 2016.
    Kevin R. Schrubb, Sr., San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
    Thomas S. Patterson, Esquire, Supervisory, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, Trace Maiorino, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kevin R. Schrubb, Sr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process violation arising out of the destruction of his personal property when he was unable to pay the return shipping fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even assuming that Schrubb had a protected property interest, Schrubb was given ample notice of the prison’s mail out policy and opportunities to comply with that policy. See id. at 1019 (finding no due process violation where inmate was given adequate opportunity to comply with regulation, which is “all the process that is due”).

We reject Schrubb’s contention that the district court erred in failing to consider whether Schrubb’s grievance was improperly screened out because defendants did not move for summary judgment on the basis of exhaustion.

Schrubb’s request for judicial notice is denied because defendants have included the necessary parts of the record in the excerpts of record.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.