Jacobs v. Director of California Department of Corrections

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV, No. 11-15269
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01369-LJO-
GBC
v.
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM *
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
George E. Jacobs, IV, 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).
unauthorized deductions from his inmate trust account for payment of his court
filing fees violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001),
and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jacobs’s action because Jacobs 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.” (citing Cal. Gov’t Code
§§ 810-895)).
Jacobs’s request for judicial notice is denied.
Jacobs’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15269