Willie Bolds v. J. Cavazos

MEMORANDUM

Willie Bolds, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with the confiscation and disposal of his television. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Ramirez v. Galaza, 384 F.3d 850 , 853 (9th Cir.2003) (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)(B)(ii)). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Bolds’s free exercise claim because he failed to allege facts showing that the confiscation of his television substantially burdened the practice of his religion. See Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir.2008) (test for determining whether Free Exercise Clause is implicated).

The district court properly dismissed Bolds’s claim alleging an unreasonable search of his cell and seizure of his property because “the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches [and seizures] does not apply within the confines of the prison cell.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526…