Mar

MEMORANDUM

Aaron K. Daniels, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Daniels’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim because Daniels had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Nevada law, and an inmate has no due process rights regarding the handling of grievances. 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.”); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (order) (“There is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a…