GUILLERMO TRUJILLO V. GOMEZ, No. 17-15358 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15358 D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00859-EPG v. MEMORANDUM* GOMEZ, Correctional Officer; SANCHEZ, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Erica P. Grosjean, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted September 26, 2017*** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** Trujillo consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). process and retaliation claims. 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 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s due process claim because Trujillo had an adequate postdeprivation remedy under California law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“[A] . . . 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) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”). The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s retaliation claim because Trujillo failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Trujillo’s filing of a grievance was the substantial or motivating factor behind defendants’ alleged conduct. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); see also Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the substantial or motivating factor behind the 2 17-15358 defendant’s conduct.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 3 17-15358

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.