Darryl Johnson v. Bruzunetti

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRYL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRUZUNETTI,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-15497
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02411-MCE-
CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Darryl Johnson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his
due process rights arising from the loss of his property. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson 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.”).
AFFIRMED.
13-15497 2

-- 2 of 2 --