James Garrett, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Arizona Department of Corrections, Defendant-appellee, 54 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 1995)

MEMORANDUM^** 

James Garrett, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Garrett contends that prison officials violated his civil rights when they allegedly removed money from his prison account. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review for abuse of discretion, Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992). We affirm.

Where the deprivation of property results from the unpredictable negligent acts of state agents, the availability of an adequate state postdeprivation remedy satisfies due process requirements. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543-44 (1981) overruled on other grounds, Daniel v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-33 (1986); Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989). State postdeprivation remedies are sufficient for due process purposes in cases of intentional, unauthorized actions. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530-33 (1984); Taylor, 871 F.2d at 805.

Pursuant to Arizona state law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Secs. 12-821 et seq., Garrett has a postdeprivation remedy. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Secs. 12-821 et seq.; see also Howland v. Arizona, 818 P.2d 1169, 1172-73 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this action without leave to amend. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (holding that in forma pauperis complaints that lack an arguable basis in fact or law may be dismissed before service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)).

AFFIRMED.