Taylor

MEMORANDUM **

Alonzo Lee Taylor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants denied him due process and access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s orders. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 *755 (9th Cir.2001) (dismissed under 12(b)(6)); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly concluded that Taylor failed to state a due process claim with respect to the confiscation of his personal property because the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 536 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); see also Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (1994) (per curiam) (“California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery pending the outcome of defendants’ motion to dismiss as Taylor does not show how the failure to pursue discovery resulted in actual and substantial…