Adoc

MEMORANDUM

James Skinner, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and First Amendment violations related to the loss of his personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed all of Skinner’s claims against the Arizona Department of Corrections as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (neither state nor state agency may be sued in federal court without its consent under the Eleventh Amendment).

The district court properly dismissed Skinner’s due process claims against the remaining defendants because the random and unauthorized intentional deprivation of personal property does not give rise to a due process claim where, as here, a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available under state law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393…