Cdcr

MEMORANDUM

Michael Anthony Todd appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he has been denied the right to practice his religion. 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 Todd’s due process claim because Todd 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 deprivation of prop- ’ erty 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 district court properly dismissed Todd’s claim regarding the processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not…