MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Darryl Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his due process rights arising from the loss of his property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (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.”); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”).

AFFIRMED.