MEMORANDUM **

Raymond Sherman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. Ed *496 wards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Sherman’s claim that the defendants prematurely authorized a restitution payment from his prison account does not state a cognizable constitutional claim because he has an adequate remedy under the California Tort Claims Act. See Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737-38 (9th Cir. 2001).

Likewise, Sherman’s arguments about the inadequacies of the prison appeals process do not state a cognizable constitutional claim because Sherman does not have a constitutional right to a particular grievance process. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).

We have considered and are not persuaded by Sherman’s remaining contentions.

AFFIRMED.