Guillermo Cruz Trujillo v. GOMEZ, Correctional Officer; SANCHEZ, Correctional Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GOMEZ, Correctional Officer; SANCHEZ,
Correctional Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15358
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00859-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Erica P. Grosjean, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 26, 2017***
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** Trujillo 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).
FILED
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-15358
process and retaliation claims. 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 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s due process claim because
Trujillo had an adequate postdeprivation remedy under California law. See
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“[A] . . . 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) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any
property deprivations.”).
The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s retaliation claim because
Trujillo failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Trujillo’s filing of a grievance
was the substantial or motivating factor behind defendants’ alleged conduct. See
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a
retaliation claim in the prison context); see also Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262,
1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that
his protected conduct was the substantial or motivating factor behind the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-15358
defendant’s conduct.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --