Curlin Pennick, Iii v. Dawn Thompson, in her individual capacities

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CURLIN PENNICK, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAWN THOMPSON, in her individual
capacities,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-35882
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05175-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Curlin Pennick, III, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendant violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by incorrectly
FILED
NOV 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-35882 2
depositing education funds in his spendable account and for failing to adequately
correct this mistake. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to
state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185
(9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Pennick’s action because adequate
post-deprivation remedies existed to address any alleged deprivation of property.
See Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 918 (9th Cir. 2000) (established prison
grievance procedures and Washington state tort law actions are adequate post-
deprivation remedies for random and unauthorized deprivations); Brewster v. Bd.
of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998) (due
process claims require a showing of “denial of adequate procedural protections”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --