Quincy Sims v. C. LESINAK, Leiutenant at Kern Valley State Prison

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QUINCY SIMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C. LESINAK, Leiutenant at Kern Valley
State Prison,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-16191
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01130-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 15, 2016***
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Quincy Sims appeals pro se from the district court’s
FILED
MAR 23 2016
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.
** Sims consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim
arising out of the confiscation of his personal property. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892
(9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152
F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sims’ action because Sims 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.
15-16191 2

-- 2 of 2 --