Marvin Harris, Plaintiff-appellant, v. M.e. Aoussopaulos, et al., Defendants-appellees, 5 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 1993)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Marvin Harris, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's award of summary judgment de novo, T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 629 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.

Harris contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant prison officials. Harris alleged in his complaint that prison officials destroyed or confiscated his personal property in violation of the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment. We disagree. The negligent or intentional deprivation of a prisoner's property fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the state has an adequate post deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). A post deprivation tort remedy satisfies due process considerations. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128-29 (1990). By enacting the California Tort Claims Act, Cal.Gov't Code Secs. 810-995, the State of California waived its sovereign immunity from liability and consented to be sued in California courts, see Cal.Gov't Code Secs. 815.2, 945, thereby providing an adequate post deprivation remedy. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543 (1981), rev'd on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). Because California law provides an adequate post deprivation remedy, the district properly granted summary judgment on this claim.

Harris also argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his claim that, because his legal papers were confiscated, he was denied access to the courts. We disagree. As Harris failed to allege or demonstrate either inadequate access to legal information or actual denial of access to the courts, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant prison officials on Harris' access to the courts claim. See Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989) (prisoner must allege inadequate access to legal information or actual denial of access to the courts).

Because Harris has an adequate post deprivation remedy under California law, and because Harris failed to demonstrate the denial of access to the courts, the district court properly awarded summary judgment in favor of prison defendants.¹ 

AFFIRMED.