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:T4ae,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Darryl Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his due process rights arising from the loss of his property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (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 post-deprivation 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.”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4db,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Darryl Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his due process rights arising from the loss of his property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (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 post-deprivation 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.”).

AFFIRMED.

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