Jesse King v. W. Bigford

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Jesse Stephen King appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access-to-courts and due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on King’s access-to-courts claim because King failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of the loss of his property. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing of actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on King’s due process claim based on the unauthorized deprivation of property because King had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law. See Barnett, 31 F.3d at .816 (“[A] negligent or intentional deprivation of a prisoner’s property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the state has an adequate post deprivation remedy.”). To the extent that King’s due process claim is based…