Fisher

MEMORANDUM ***

James H. Fisher, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s partial summary judgment and the jury verdict for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by, among *932 other things, ordering retaliatory transfers in an effort to discourage him from filing complaints, confiscating his personal possessions, and using excessive force to subdue him. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliatory transfer claims, because Fisher failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the transfers he complained of were without legitimate penological purpose. See id. at 815-16 .

The district court properly concluded that Fisher failed to state a section 1983 civil rights claim for confiscation of his personal property because California law provides an adequate post-deprivation process. See id. at 816-17 .

We do not consider Fisher’s claim that expert testimony from his trial…