Alfred King v. P. Medina; J. Guillory

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFRED KING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
P. MEDINA; J. GUILLORY,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-17418
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02709-JAM-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alfred King, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process
violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Supervisors,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-17418
845 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed King’s action because King failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that a meaningful post-deprivation remedy was
unavailable to him. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (holding that
an intentional deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful
post-deprivation remedy is available); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th
Cir. 1994) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any
property deprivations.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --