Terry Bishop, Petitioner-appellant, v. John Ignacio, Respondent-appellee, 967 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1992)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Terry Bishop, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.¹ 

A court should liberally construe pro se civil rights pleadings, affording the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Before an action brought pro se may be dismissed, the court must provide the plaintiff with notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

In his complaint, Bishop alleged that he was deprived of a property interest as a result of the prison's policy of deducting the cost of legal paper and postage from his inmate trust fund account. This claim fails because intentional deprivations of property by a state employee do not violate the due process clause if, as here, a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).

Bishop also alleged that he has been deprived of meaningful access to the courts as a result of being charged for stamps and legal paper. Indigent inmates must be provided at state expense with paper to draft legal documents, and with stamps to mail them. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 617, 621-23 (1977). There is no prohibition, however, against debiting an inmate's trust fund account when and if such funds become available. Moreover, to state a claim for denial of access to the courts where the claim does not involve adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law, the plaintiff must allege an "actual injury", or a specific instance in which he was denied access to the courts. See Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, Bishop has failed to allege any specific instance of denial of access to the courts. Moreover, although Bishop was given an opportunity to amend his complaint to state such specific facts, he failed to do so. Therefore, this claim also fails. See id.

AFFIRMED.