Unpublished Disposition, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Teshome Abate, an Arizona prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 action against various government and private defendants. In his complaint, Abate sought recovery of certain property, including his car, that disappeared after his arrest. He also sought an order vacating his conviction because some of this property allegedly was essential to his defense, and his appointed counsel was ineffective for failing to recover it. We affirm.

The district court correctly determined that Abate cannot state a claim under section 1983 or 1985. Arizona law allows for tort claims, including those for loss of property, against government entities and employees as well as private citizens. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. Sec. 12-821 et seq. Because Arizona law provides Abate with this postdeprivation remedy, even if defendants' actions deprived him of his property, they have not denied him of any constitutional right. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981).

The district court did not address Abate's claims regarding his counsel's effectiveness and the deprivation of documents essential to his defense. While this is cause for some concern, it is not a basis on which we may grant the requested relief. If Abate is successful as to either of these claims, the result would be his release from custody. A prisoner's challenge to his confinement in which he seeks release may be raised only in a habeas corpus petition, and only after the prisoner has exhausted his state remedies as to those claims. See Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 681-82 (9th Cir. 1984). Because Abate's complaint did not allege that he had exhausted his state remedies, the district court did not err in dismissing these claims.

AFFIRMED.¹