22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T48d,MEMORANDUM Raymond Sherman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. Ed wards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 , 1061 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm. Sherman’s claim that the defendants prematurely authorized a restitution payment from his prison account does not state a cognizable constitutional claim because he has an adequate remedy under the California Tort Claims Act. See Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737-38 (9th Cir.2001). Likewise, Sherman’s arguments about the inadequacies of the prison appeals process do not state a cognizable constitutional claim because Sherman does not have a constitutional right to a particular grievance process. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003). We have considered and are not persuaded by Sherman’s remaining contentions. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4c4,

MEMORANDUM

Raymond Sherman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. Ed wards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 , 1061 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

Sherman’s claim that the defendants prematurely authorized a restitution payment from his prison account does not state a cognizable constitutional claim because he has an adequate remedy under the California Tort Claims Act. See Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737-38 (9th Cir.2001).

Likewise, Sherman’s arguments about the inadequacies of the prison appeals process do not state a cognizable constitutional claim because Sherman does not have a constitutional right to a particular grievance process. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003).

We have considered and are not persuaded by Sherman’s remaining contentions.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.