
    George E. JACOBS, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15269.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 5, 2012.
    George E. Jacobs, IV, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Shanan L. Hewitt, Esquire, Rivera & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

George E. Jacobs, IV, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that unauthorized deductions from his inmate trust account for payment of his court filing fees violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jacobs’s action because Jacobs 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 postdeprivation 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.” (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895)).

Jacobs’s request for judicial notice is denied.

Jacobs’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     