Wilson
Wilson v. Nesbeth
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
David Wayne Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against prison officials for retaliating against him for filing prison grievances. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020 , 1027 n. 3 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s claim that he was deprived of property without due process because Wilson had an adequate post deprivation remedy under California law. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (“[A] negligent or intentional deprivation of a prisoner’s property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the state has an adequate post deprivation remedy.”) (per curiam).
The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s equal protection claim because his Third Amended Complaint failed to allege facts suggesting that “Enhanced *293 Out Patient” inmates were similarly…