Case Name: Quincy SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. LESINAK, Leiutenant at Kern Valley State Prison, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-23
Citations: 645 F. App'x 559
Docket Number: No. 15-16191
Parties: Quincy SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. LESINAK, Leiutenant at Kern Valley State Prison, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 645
Pages: 559–560

Head Matter:
Quincy SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. LESINAK, Leiutenant at Kern Valley State Prison, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-16191.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 23, 2016.
Quincy Sims, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Quincy Sims appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim arising out of the confiscation of his personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011) (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 Sims' action because Sims had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (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.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.