FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH DANNY PROPHET, No. 09-15804 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02822-FCD- EFB v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et MEMORANDUM * al., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 25, 2010 **

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Joseph Danny Prophet, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). prison personnel violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Prophet’s second amended complaint because he failed to state a cognizable claim against any defendant. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996) (a prisoner’s right to access the courts is limited to the pursuit of a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (“[A] prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.”); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (a prisoner’s allegations of property deprivations failed to state a due process claim under section 1983 because California provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy).

Prophet’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

2 09-15804