Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00644/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00644-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUY T. STRINGHAM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 05-0644 FCD GGH P

vs.

J. BICK, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. By concurrently filed order, the court has found plaintiff’s first amended complaint

appropriate for service upon ten (10) defendants. However, as to defendants M. Cry and N.

Grannis, plaintiff’s allegations as to these individuals concern the manner in which his inmate

grievances were processed.

Prisoners do not have a “separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison

grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003), citing Mann v.

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Even the non-existence of, or the failure of prison

officials to properly implement, an administrative appeals process within the prison system does

not raise constitutional concerns. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). See also,

Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir.

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 2
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

 “[W]e recognize that States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests 1

which are protected by the Due Process Clause. See also Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S.

369, 107 S.Ct. 2415, 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987). But these interests will be generally limited to

freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as

to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, see, e.g., Vitek v. Jones,

445 U.S. 480, 493, 100 S.Ct.1254, 1263-1264 (transfer to mental hospital), and Washington, 494

U.S. 210, 221- 222, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 1036-1037 (involuntary administration of psychotropic

drugs), nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, supra. 

2

1991). Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D.Ill. 1982) (“[A prison] grievance procedure

is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates. Hence, it

does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned

by the fourteenth amendment”). Specifically, a failure to process a grievance does not state a

constitutional violation. Buckley, supra. State regulations give rise to a liberty interest protected

by the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution only if those regulations pertain to

“freedom from restraint” that “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation

to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S. Ct. 2293,

2300 (1995). The court will recommend dismissal of these two defendants from this action. 1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants M. Cry and N.

Grannis be dismissed from this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 3/15/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/stri0664.fr

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 2