process claim. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. Although appellant also asserted that his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an illegal seizure was violated, this allegation essentially restated his due process claim, and regardless, the Fourth Amendment does not apply within the confines of a prison cell. Id. at 528 & n.8. Thus, his illegal seizure claim fails for the same reason as his due process claim. See id. at 526, 533. To the extent that appellant asserted a state tort claim for negligence, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider such a claim based on the facts alleged, as the value of the property at issue was well under $10,000.

See NRS 4.370(1)(b) (justice courts have jurisdiction over actions for detaining or damaging personal property valued under $10,000); see also Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1) (district courts "have original jurisdiction in all cases excluded by law from the original jurisdiction of justices' courts").

As appellant could not establish either a constitutional claim or a state tort claim within the district court's jurisdiction under the facts alleged in the complaint, dismissal was proper, see Buzz Stew, 124 Nev. at 228, 181 P.3d at 672, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. ,c).--; A - 1. - Saitta

Gibbons Pickering

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Demetrious Stewart Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947e)