Jensen v. Washington State Department of Corrections , 543 F. App'x 691 ( 2013 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
TED JENSEN, No. 12-35921
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01380-MJP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant,
and
CINDY KLINE, Correction Officer,
Monroe Correction Complex; BRIAN
SMITH, Correction Officer, Monroe
Correction Complex,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, Chief Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted October 15, 2013 **
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Ted Jensen appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials
confiscated and destroyed his personal religious property in violation of his
constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jensen’s First
Amendment claim because Jensen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants’ actions did not reasonably advance legitimate
penological interests. See Shakur, 514 F.3d at 883-84 (infringement upon inmate’s
right to free exercise is valid if reasonably related to a legitimate penological
interest).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jensen’s Fourth
Amendment claim because “the Fourth Amendment proscription against
unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cell.”
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984).
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 12-35921
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jensen’s due
process claim for unauthorized deprivation of property because Jensen has an
adequate post-deprivation remedy under Washington state law. See Wright v.
Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 918 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process claim for
unauthorized deprivation of property where state provides adequate post-
deprivation remedy).
The district court properly dismissed all claims against the state of
Washington Department of Corrections because absent consent, the Eleventh
Amendment bars suits against states and their agencies. See Pennhurst State Sch.
& Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“It is clear, of course, that in the
absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments is
named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jensen’s motion to
file an amended complaint because the proposed amendments would have been
futile. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth the
standard of review and explaining that denial of request to amend complaint
appropriate where amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jensen’s request for
additional discovery because Jensen failed to show how the discovery he sought
3 12-35921
would have precluded summary judgment. See Tatum v. City & County of San
Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review
and requirements under former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)).
We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
4 12-35921