11-15269•George E. Jacobs, Iv v. Director of the California Department of Corrections;
11-15269Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit5 de mar. de 2012
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15269
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01369-LJO-
GBC
MEMORANDUM*
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.
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
FILED
MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-15269 2
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.
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.