Mitchell v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 23, 2025
• Docket: 23-3811
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD MITCHELL, No. 23-3811 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-02232-DJC-CKD Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; J. BENEVIDAZ, Warden; PATRICK COVELLO, Warden; HABENDANK SACKETT, Custodial Officer; HABEDANK, Custodial Officer; PATTERSON, Custodial Officer; MULE CREEK STATE PRISON; FEDEX CORPORATION; CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Daniel J. Calabretta, District Court, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2025**

* 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). Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Ronald Mitchell appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process

violations related to the loss of his personal property. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mitchell’s action because Mitchell

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a due process claim. See Daniels v.

Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986) (explaining that the Due Process Clause is not

implicated by negligent acts by a state actor leading to loss of property); Hudson v.

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (explaining that an “unauthorized intentional

deprivation of property” by a state actor does not violate due process if a

meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available); Barnett v. Centoni,

31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (“California Law provides an adequate post-

deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

2 23-3811 All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 23-3811