Quincy Sims v. C. Lesinak

Ninth Circuit

Quincy Sims v. C. Lesinak

645 F. App'x 559

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 2016

Docket15-16191

StatusUnpublished

This text of 645 F. App'x 559 (Quincy Sims v. C. Lesinak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Quincy Sims v. C. Lesinak, 645 F. App'x 559 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Quincy Sims appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim arising out of the confiscation of his personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

*560 The district court properly dismissed Sims’ action because Sims had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.1994) ■ (per curiam) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Quincy Sims appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim arising out of the confiscation of his personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

*560 The district court properly dismissed Sims’ action because Sims had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.1994) ■ (per curiam) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 F. App'x 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quincy-sims-v-c-lesinak-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack