Brazelton

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Ronald Everett appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging constitutional violations in connection with loss of property and disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Everett’s due process claim based on his loss of property because Everett 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) (no due process claim against a state employee for an unauthorized intentional or negligent deprivation of property where state law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy); 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.”). The court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to…