T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 09-15849 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T H O W A RD ELLI S, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. J A M E S B E N E D E T T I ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15849 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 8 - CV - 0 0 6 5 7 - ECRR AM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da E dw ar d C . R e e d, J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H ow ar d E l l i s, a N evada s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on w i th p re j ud i ce for f

ai l ure t o s t a t e ac l a i m pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1915( e ) ( 2) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 

# FI LED OC T 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09-15849 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o a n o r d e ro f d is m is s a l, B arr e n v . H

arr i ngton , 152 F . 3d 1193, 1194 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( or de r ) , a nd r e vi e w f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on th e d e n ia l o f

le a v e to a m e n d , H

ale t v . W e nd I nv . C o. , 67 2 F . 2d 13 05 , 13 10 (9th C i r. 1982) . W e m aya f

f i rm on anygr ound s upport e d bythe r e c or d. B uckleyv. T e rhune , 4 4 1 F . 3 d6 8 8 , 6 9 4 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (en b an c). W e affi rm i n p art , rev erse i n pa rt , and r e m and. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dth e d e p r iv a tio n o f p r o p e rtyc la im in C o u n t 1 o f

th e c o m p la in t b e c au s e th e S ta te o f N e v a d ap r o v id e s a n a d e q u a te p o s t- d e p r iv a tio n r e m e d y . See N e v . R e v . S ta t. § § 4 1 .0 3 1 , 4 1 .0 3 2 2 ; H ud son v. P alm er , 46 8 U . S . 51 7, 53 3 (19 84 ) ( depri vat i on of prop erty does notconst i tut e a du e p r o c e s s v io la tio n w h e n ap o s t- d e p r iv a tio n s ta te r e m e dyis a v a ilab le ) . W e the r e f or e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l of E l l i s ’ s c l a i m s c onc e rni ng l os tor m i ssi n g p ro p erty. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e da n ydu e p r o c e s s c la im E llis s o u g h t to a lle g e in C o u n ts 1 a n d2 o f th e c o m p la in t b e c au s e h e h a s n o du e p r o c e s s r ig h t to have hi s gri evances hand l ed i n a part i cul arm anner. Se e Ma n n v . A da ms , 855 F . 2d 63 9, 64 0 (9th C i r. 19 88 ) ( order) . W e there fore af fi rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s order d i sm i ssi n g E l l i s’ s ch al l en g es t o th e p ro cessi n g o f h i s g ri ev an ces.09-15849 3 W e r e m and the r e m a i ni ng a l l e ga t i ons of C ount s 1 a nd 2 and i ns truc tthe d is tr ic t c o u rt to c o n s id e rw h e th e ro rn o t le a v e to a m e n dis w arr an te d . See L op ezv. Sm ith , 203 F . 3d 1122, 1130- 31 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( e n banc ) ( l e a ve t o a m e nd m us tbe grant ed un l es s c om pl ai nt ’ s def i ci enci es coul d n otpo ss i bl y be c ured). I n C ount3, E l l i s a l l e ge d tha tde f e nda nt s de pr i ve d hi m of due pr oc e s s by d e n y in g w ith o u t e x p lan a tio n h is r e q u e s t f o raliv e w itn e s s a t ad is c ip lin aryh e ar in g . W e rev erse th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d i sm i ssal o f C o u n t3 b ecau se i tst at es a du e p ro cess vi ol a t i on. Se e Se rra n o v . Fra n c is , 3 4 5 F .3 d1 0 7 1 , 1 0 8 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . I n i t s di s m i s s a l or de r , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notm e nt i on C ount s 4 thr ough 8 o f th e c o m p la in t. O n r e m an d , th e c o u rt s h a ll a d d r e s s th e s e c o u n ts . See W ei lbu rg v. Sh a p i ro , 48 8 F . 3d 12 02 , 12 05 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( pro se i nm at es m ustbe gi ven n ot i ce o f c o m p la in t’s d e f

ic ie n c ie s a n dle a v e to a m e n dif th e s e a r e c u r ab le ) . AF F I RME D i n p a r t , RE V E RS E D i n p a r t , a n d RE MAND E D.