ALFRED KING V. P. MEDINA, No. 17-17418 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFRED KING, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-17418 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02709-JAM-CKD v. MEMORANDUM* P. MEDINA; J. GUILLORY, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Alfred King, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, * 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). 845 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed King’s action because King failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a meaningful post-deprivation remedy was unavailable to him. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (holding that an intentional deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”). AFFIRMED. 2 17-17418

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.