Jacobs v. Director of California Department of Corrections
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
George E. Jacobs, IV, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that unauthorized deductions from his inmate trust account for payment of his court filing fees violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jacobs’s action because Jacobs 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) (“[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.”); 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.” (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895)).
Jacobs’s request for judicial notice is denied.