RAYMOND SHERMAN, Sr. v. SUZZAN HUBBARD, Director of Corrections

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
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
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01605-GEB-
KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2010 **
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
AUG 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15669 2
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. Edwards 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.
Galazza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
We have considered and are not persuaded by Sherman’s remaining
contentions.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --