NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES P. ANDERSON, No. 23-1535

D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00922-TLT

Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* KEVIN RUNGE; L. RICHARDSON; D. ARVIZO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 17, 2025** Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner James P. Anderson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). de novo. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Anderson’s retaliation claim because Anderson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants took an adverse action against him because of his protected conduct. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the requirements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Anderson’s due process claim because Anderson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his constitutional rights were violated. See Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (no due process violation where an inmate was given notice of and an adequate opportunity to comply with a regulation that restricted personal property because “that is all the process that is due”); see also Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532-33 (1984) (an unauthorized deprivation of property, whether negligent or intentional, is not actionable if the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post- deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

2 23-1535 All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED.

3 23-1535