NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 26 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS CURLIN PENNICK, III, No. 11-35882

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05175-RBL v.

MEMORANDUM * DAWN THOMPSON, in her individual capacities,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Curlin Pennick, III, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by incorrectly

*

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). depositing education funds in his spendable account and for failing to adequately correct this mistake. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Pennick’s action because adequate post-deprivation remedies existed to address any alleged deprivation of property. See Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 918 (9th Cir. 2000) (established prison grievance procedures and Washington state tort law actions are adequate post- deprivation remedies for random and unauthorized deprivations); Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998) (due process claims require a showing of “denial of adequate procedural protections”).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-35882