Jerome Carpenter v. RON BROOMFIELD, Warden; D. NELSON, Correctional Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEROME CARPENTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RON BROOMFIELD, Warden; D.
NELSON, Correctional Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15182
D.C. No. 5:22-cv-02086-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jerome Carpenter appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation
of property in violation of due process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v.
* 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).
FILED
NOV 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-15182
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Carpenter’s action because Carpenter
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
random and unauthorized deprivation of property 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.”).
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.

-- 2 of 2 --