Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

David Allen Mann v. James Adams, and Bruce Babbitt, Governor of Arizona

855 F.2d 639

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1988-10-11
Topic: bankruptcy

holding that inmates do not have a “legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure” | holding that a state’s unpublished 20 policy statements establishing a grievance procedure do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest | holding that a state’s unpublished policy statements establishing a grievance 28 procedure do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest | holding that there is no protected liberty interest to 1 right to have a prison appeal. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084-3084.9 (2014 | holding that 5 a state’s unpublished policy statements establishing a grievance procedure do not create 6 a constitutionally protected liberty interest | holding that a state’s unpublished policy 10 statements establishing a grievance procedure do not create a constitutionally protected liberty 11 interest | holding that a state’s unpublished policy statements establishing a 11 grievance procedure do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest | holding that a state’s unpublished policy 14 statements establishing a grievance procedure do not create a constitutionally protected 15 liberty interest | concluding that due process is not violated simply 14 because defendant fails properly to process grievances submitted for consideration | holding that 4 a state’s unpublished policy statements establishing a grievance procedure do not create 5 a constitutionally protected liberty interest | holding that 28 a state’s unpublished policy statements establishing a grievance procedure do not create 1 a constitutionally protected liberty interest | holding that 8 a state’s unpublished policy statements establishing a grievance procedure do not create 9 a constitutionally protected liberty interest | holding that state prisoners have A no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure @ | holding that a state’s 22 unpublished policy statements establishing a grievance procedure do not create a constitutionally 23 protected liberty interest | holding that inmates do not have a “legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure” | holding that a state’s unpublished 4 policy statements establishing a grievance procedure do not create a constitutionally protected 5 liberty interest | holding that state prisoners have "no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure" | holding that a state’s policy statements establishing a grievance procedure do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest 19 because there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure | holding that a state’s unpublished policy statements establishing a grievance 7 procedure do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest because there is no legitimate 8 claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure | holding that there is no protected liberty interest to a 21 grievance procedure | holding that there is no protected liberty interest to 17 a grievance procedure | holding that there is no protected liberty interest 24 to a grievance procedure | holding that there is no protected liberty interest to 17 a grievance procedure | holding that there is no protected liberty interest to 18 a grievance procedure | holding that there is no 19 protected liberty interest to a grievance procedure | holding that there is no protected 7 liberty interest to a grievance procedure | holding that there is no protected liberty interest to a grievance procedure | holding that there is no protected liberty interest to a grievance procedure | stating that due process not violated because unpublished administrative policy statements in establishing a grievance procedure did not create a protected liberty interest | finding that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment creates “no legitimate claim of entitlement to a [prison] grievance procedure” | stating that due process not violated when defendant failed to properly process grievance because unpublished administrative policy

Citator

Cited by: 441 opinions

ORDER

In his petition for rehearing, Mann contends that the unpublished administrative policy statements of the Arizona Department of Corrections in establishing a grievance procedure created a protected liberty interest.

The Supreme Court has held that “a State creates a protected liberty by placing substantive limitations on official discretion.” Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1747, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983). The Supreme Court has also held that to obtain a protectable right an individual must have “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2104, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979); see also Allen v. Board of Pardons, 792 F.2d 1404, 1407 (9th Cir.1986), aff'd, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2415, 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987). There is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure. See Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100 (7th Cir.1982); Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8, 11 (N.D.Ill.1982). The unpublished policy statements create no protected liberty interest.

The panel as constituted above has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App.P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.