Court Opinion

ID: 9955868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 17:00:45.015357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:34.608656
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 29 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALIM URMANCHEEV,                                No. 22-15701

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00791-DAD-BAK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
HUNTER; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Former California state prisoner Alim Urmancheev appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access-to-

courts and deprivation of property claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d

443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Urmancheev’s access-to-courts claim

because Urmancheev failed to show actual injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim.

See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (explaining that an access-to-

courts claim requires a plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused an actual

injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S.

403, 415-17 (2002) (to plead an actual injury for an access-to-courts claim, the

complaint “should state the underlying claim . . . just as if it were being

independently pursued”).

      The district court properly dismissed Urmancheev’s deprivation of property

claim because Urmancheev failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a

meaningful post-deprivation remedy was unavailable to him. See Hudson v.

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532-33 (1984) (a deprivation of property, whether random

or intentional, is not actionable if the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation

remedy); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (“California

[l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property

deprivations.”).

                                           2                                   22-15701
      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                        3                                   22-15701