WILLIE BOLDS V. J. CAVAZOS, No. 18-15506 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIE BOLDS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-15506 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01754-LJO-BAM v. MEMORANDUM* J. CAVAZOS, Chief Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Willie Bolds appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a procedural due process claim. 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. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 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 Bolds’s action arising from the alleged deprivation of his television under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3287(a)(4) because Bolds failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was not provided with the process he was due under the regulation. See Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (a prison violates the due process clause “when it prescribes and enforces forfeitures of property [w]ithout underlying [statutory] authority and competent procedural protections” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject as without merit Bolds’s contentions that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to submit findings and recommendations for the district judge’s consideration or that the district judge failed to make a de novo determination of those portions of the findings and recommendations to which Bolds objected. AFFIRMED. 2 18-15506

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.