Case Name: Raymond SHERMAN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suzzan HUBBARD, Director of Corrections; N. Grannis, Chief of Inmate Appeals; D.K. Sisto, Warden; E. Pryor, Saoi(s) CSP Solano; S. Cervantes, Correctional Counselor II, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-27
Citations: 393 F. App'x 495
Docket Number: No. 09-15669
Parties: Raymond SHERMAN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suzzan HUBBARD, Director of Corrections; N. Grannis, Chief of Inmate Appeals; D.K. Sisto, Warden; E. Pryor, Saoi(s) CSP Solano; S. Cervantes, Correctional Counselor II, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 495–496

Head Matter:
Raymond SHERMAN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suzzan HUBBARD, Director of Corrections; N. Grannis, Chief of Inmate Appeals; D.K. Sisto, Warden; E. Pryor, Saoi(s) CSP Solano; S. Cervantes, Correctional Counselor II, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-15669.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
Filed Aug. 27, 2010.
Raymond Sherman, Sr., Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, 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
Raymond Sherman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. Ed wards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
Sherman's claim that the defendants prematurely authorized a restitution payment from his prison account does not state a cognizable constitutional claim because he has an adequate remedy under the California Tort Claims Act. See Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737-38 (9th Cir.2001).
Likewise, Sherman's arguments about the inadequacies of the prison appeals process do not state a cognizable constitutional claim because Sherman does not have a constitutional right to a particular grievance process. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003).
We have considered and are not persuaded by Sherman's remaining contentions.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.