# Eugene Brown v. S. Winn-Reed

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 27, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4655104

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 27, 2021
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4655104

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4655104. Public record. Not legal advice.