Unpublished Disposition, 884 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 884 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1989)

Lacey Mark SIVAK, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.William KIENZLE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-3895.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 31, 1989.* Decided Sept. 5, 1989.

Before TANG, NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Lacey Mark Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against William Kienzle, the Postal Inspector in Boise, Idaho, on grounds that it was frivolous and without merit. We affirm.

In his brief on appeal, Sivak does nothing more than restate the basis for his complaint, which is essentially that the post office breached a contractual obligation owed to his mother by losing a piece of mail sent by his mother by certified mail and that Kienzle was not helpful in trying to locate the lost mail.

A district court may dismiss a pro se litigant's complaint without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if the complaint has no arguable basis in law or fact and it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured through amendment. Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989); Hernandez v. Dutton, 861 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1988). We review such a dismissal de novo. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985).

To support a complaint under section 1983, a plaintiff must minimally allege a deprivation of a right protected by the federal Constitution and laws. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sivak has not pointed to any federally protected federal constitutional or statutory right of his that the post office, or Kienzle violated. Nor does it appear that any exist. Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3