Opinion
No. 11-15269 D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01369-LJO-GBC
03-05-2012
GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012 Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------
George E. Jacobs, IV, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that unauthorized deductions from his inmate trust account for payment of his court filing fees violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jacobs's action because Jacobs had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law. See 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 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." (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895)).
Jacobs's request for judicial notice is denied.
Jacobs's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.