Court Opinion

ID: 4655104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-01-27 21:00:50.549498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:59:08.611983
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 27 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EUGENE CARLTON BROWN,                           No. 20-15376

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00240-LJO-BAM

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
S. WINN-REED, Mailroom Manager at
Sierra Conservation Center; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                   Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before:      McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Eugene Carlton Brown appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and

Fourteenth Amendment violations in connection with the rejection and disposal of

his incoming mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

      *
             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).
novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113,

1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Brown’s action because Brown failed

to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d

338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a

plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Turner v.

Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (infringement of a prisoner’s rights is

permissible if carried out pursuant to a regulation that is reasonably related to a

legitimate governmental interest); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (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 post deprivation remedy for the loss

is available.”); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates

lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance

procedure[.]”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     20-15376