Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00363/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00363-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00363-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 8)

ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION

Kenneth Patterson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On May 25, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended this action be dismissed for

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to

the parties that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

June 26, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time. In the

Case 1:05-cv-00363-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 12/12/06 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

meantime, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations on July 19, 2006. On July 26, 2006,

the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to extend time nunc pro tunc

to June 27, 2006, the day after plaintiff filed objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The

objections do not present a basis to not adopt the Findings and

Recommendations. 

In the objections, Plaintiff confirms that this action

raises issues concerning Defendants’ failure to correctly follow

California’s prison grievance procedures and respond to

Plaintiff’s grievances. As explained by the Magistrate Judge,

prisoners have no constitutional right to an inmate grievance

system. Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7 Cir. 2001); th

Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8 Cir.1993) see also th

Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983). Although the

California Department of Corrections has an administrative

grievance procedure for prisoner complaints, see Cal. Code Regs.,

tit. 15 § 3084.1 (2003), this “grievance procedure is a

procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right

upon the inmates.” Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495 (citing Azeez v.

DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)); see also Mann

v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). “Hence, it does not

give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the

procedural protections envisioned by the Fourteenth Amendment.” 

Case 1:05-cv-00363-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 12/12/06 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

3

Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. at 10. In addition,

Defendants’ alleged failure to follow prison rules when

processing Plaintiff’s appeals did not impose an "atypical and

significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of

prison life," and thus did not implicate due process

considerations. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Thus,

Defendants alleged failures under California law when addressing

Plaintiff’s administrative grievances cannot serve as the basis

of a civil rights cause of action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 25, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00363-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 3