Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01843/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01843-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN GRIGSBY, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

M. S. EVANS, et al., 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1843 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP") and frequent

litigant in this court, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 alleging that SVSP officials have interfered with his efforts to pursue

California's prison administrative appeal process by improperly screening out and

cancelling his administrative appeals. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

Case 3:08-cv-01843-CRB Document 5 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

It is well-established that there is no constitutional right to a prison

administrative appeal or grievance system, see Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850,

860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988), and that

a state's creation of a prison administrative appeal or grievance system does not

implicate a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, see Antonelli v.

Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494,

495 (8th Cir. 1993) (same). Plaintiff's allegations regarding SVSP officials

improper screening out and cancelling his administrative appeals fail to state a

claim under § 1983 and are dismissed See id.

It matters not that plaintiff invokes his constitutional right of access to the

courts. The timely filing of this action, and the numerous pleadings this court

receives from plaintiff on an almost daily basis, makes clear that the hindrances

of which he complains did not cause him an actual injury to court access. See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 936

(9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff is free to file a federal action challenging the conditions

of his confinement and argue therein that the screening out and/or cancelling of

his administrative appeal constitutes exhaustion under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

Case 3:08-cv-01843-CRB Document 5 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.08\Grigsby, J1.dismissal.wpd 3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED under the

authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

pending motions as moot, and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 15, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01843-CRB Document 5 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 3