Joseph Prophet v. Department of Corrections ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH DANNY PROPHET, No. 09-15804
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02822-FCD-
EFB
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et MEMORANDUM *
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Danny Prophet, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
*
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).
prison personnel violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Prophet’s second amended complaint
because he failed to state a cognizable claim against any defendant. See Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996) (a prisoner’s right to access the courts is
limited to the pursuit of a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or
conditions of confinement); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (“[A]
prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying
humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial
risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures
to abate it.”); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam)
(a prisoner’s allegations of property deprivations failed to state a due process claim
under section 1983 because California provides an adequate post-deprivation
remedy).
Prophet’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-15804