James Hinkley v. Scott Russell

MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner James Mark Hinkley appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising out of a disciplinary hearing and the disposal of his personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hinkley’s due process claim based on the unauthorized deprivation of his property because Hinkley had an adequate postdeprivation remedy under Washington law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hinkley’s due process claim based on his placement in administrative segregation because Hinkley failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was deprived of…