Faulk

MEMORANDUM

Robert J. Ellis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that state officials improperly banned, confiscated, and destroyed his personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir.2014) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ellis’s procedural due process claims because Ellis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was deprived of a liberty interest cognizable under the Due Process Clause. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 , 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (states can create liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause where prison officials “impose[] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to ordinary incidents of prison life.”). Moreover, Ellis had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (a negligent or intentional deprivation of a prisoner’s property fails to state a claim if the state has an adequate…