Curlin Pennick, III v. Dawn Thompson ( 2012 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
CURLIN PENNICK, III, No. 11-35882
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05175-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DAWN THOMPSON, in her individual
capacities,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Curlin Pennick, III, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendant violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by incorrectly
*
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).
depositing education funds in his spendable account and for failing to adequately
correct this mistake. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to
state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185
(9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Pennick’s action because adequate
post-deprivation remedies existed to address any alleged deprivation of property.
See Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 918 (9th Cir. 2000) (established prison
grievance procedures and Washington state tort law actions are adequate post-
deprivation remedies for random and unauthorized deprivations); Brewster v. Bd.
of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998) (due
process claims require a showing of “denial of adequate procedural protections”).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-35882