CURLIN PENNICK, III V. DAWN THOMPSON, No. 11-35882 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 26 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS CURLIN PENNICK, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-35882 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05175-RBL v. MEMORANDUM * DAWN THOMPSON, in her individual capacities, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Curlin Pennick, III, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by incorrectly * 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). depositing education funds in his spendable account and for failing to adequately correct this mistake. We review de novo a district court s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Pennick s action because adequate post-deprivation remedies existed to address any alleged deprivation of property. See Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 918 (9th Cir. 2000) (established prison grievance procedures and Washington state tort law actions are adequate postdeprivation remedies for random and unauthorized deprivations); Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998) (due process claims require a showing of denial of adequate procedural protections ). AFFIRMED. 2 11-35882

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.