MANUEL MARQUES V. N.D.O.C., No. 11-16789 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANUEL F. MARQUES, No. 11-16789 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00222-ECRRAM v. MEMORANDUM * N.D.O.C.; et al,, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner Manuel F. Marques appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials confiscated and lost his personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291. We review de novo, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Marques claims that prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they took and lost his property because Marques had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Nevada law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (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 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) ( [A] negligent or intentional deprivation of a prisoner s property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the state has an adequate post deprivation remedy. ); see also Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 41.031, 41.0322. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Marques remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 11-16789
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.
