Raymond Sherman, Sr. v. Suzzan Hubbard, et al, No. 09-15669 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAYMOND SHERMAN, Sr., Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-15669 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01605-GEBKJM v. SUZZAN HUBBARD, Director of Corrections; N. GRANNIS, Chief of Inmate Appeals; D. K. SISTO, Warden; E. PRYOR, SAOI(S) CSP Solano; S. CERVANTES, Correctional Counselor II, MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 10, 2010 Before: ** HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Raymond Sherman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state claim. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court s decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. Sherman s claim that the defendants prematurely authorized a restitution payment from his prison account does not state a cognizable constitutional claim because he has an adequate remedy under the California Tort Claims Act. See Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737-38 (9th Cir. 2001). Likewise, Sherman s arguments about the inadequacies of the prison appeals process do not state a cognizable constitutional claim because Sherman does not have a constitutional right to a particular grievance process. See Ramirez v. Galazza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). We have considered and are not persuaded by Sherman s remaining contentions. AFFIRMED. 2 09-15669

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.