Joseph Danny Prophet v. Department 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSEPH DANNY PROPHET,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15804
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02822-FCD-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Danny Prophet, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
FILED
JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15804 2
prison personnel violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Prophet’s second amended complaint
because he failed to state a cognizable claim against any defendant. See Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996) (a prisoner’s right to access the courts is
limited to the pursuit of a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or
conditions of confinement); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (“[A]
prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying
humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial
risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures
to abate it.”); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam)
(a prisoner’s allegations of property deprivations failed to state a due process claim
under section 1983 because California provides an adequate post-deprivation
remedy).
Prophet’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --