although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim
How later courts described this case
- although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim
- “[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful post deprivation remedy for the loss is available.”
- infringement of a prisoner’s rights is permissible if carried out pursuant to a regulation that is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest
- “[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure[.]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUGENE CARLTON BROWN, No. 20-15376
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00240-LJO-BAM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
S. WINN-REED, Mailroom Manager at
Sierra Conservation Center; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Eugene Carlton Brown appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and
Fourteenth Amendment violations in connection with the rejection and disposal of
his incoming mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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).
novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113,
1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Brown’s action because Brown failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d
338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Turner v.
Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (infringement of a prisoner’s rights is
permissible if carried out pursuant to a regulation that is reasonably related to a
legitimate governmental interest); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)
(“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does
not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful post deprivation remedy for the loss
is available.”); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates
lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance
procedure[.]”).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-15376