Summary
finding no taking where defendants' raised the price of coffee at the prison canteen because plaintiffs were aware of the prices and authorized expenditures
Summary of this case from Banks v. Cnty. of San MateoOpinion
No. 10-15801.
Submitted July 11, 2011 San Francisco, California.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
July 13, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 4:09-cv-04793-PJH.
Before: HUG, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plaintiffs are eight California prisoners who challenge the decision by Defendants, who are state officials or employees, to raise the price of certain goods, such as coffee, in the prison canteen. Reviewing de novo the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 811-12 (9th Cir. 2010), we affirm the district court for the cogent reasons stated in its order.
AFFIRMED.