Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01354/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01354-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.10\Rodgers01354_dismissal.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL DWAYNE RODGERS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

SAN MATEO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-01354 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against San Mateo County, the County Jail, and employees thereof. Plaintiff’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 2), will be addressed in a separate

order. 

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 “is

Case 5:10-cv-01354-JW Document 7 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.10\Rodgers01354_dismissal.wpd 2

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 essential

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

Plaintiff alleges that the San Mateo County Jail (“SMCJ”) has been

“operating [without] a grievance system (in accordance with the law and/or

regulations).” (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff claims that SMCJ “declare[d] that they’ve

operated a Grievance System which requires completion of all levels... on grievance

forms, [and] also inmates must write a letter to the Facility Commander.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff states that “[t]his policy they claim was adopted in 1994 and is in use to this

day.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the “laws/ruling standard(s) call for one (form of

grievance) or the other (not both).” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that requiring both is an

“excessive obstruction” and that he has suffered “unaccountable, [u]nutterable

abuses by Defs.’ Delib. Indiff. [sic] conspiracy, collusion, and ill intent.” (Id.)

Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. 

Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim

under § 1983, i.e., the deprivation of a federal or constitutional right. First of all,

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); see also Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430

(7th Cir. 1996); Garfield v. Davis, 566 F. Supp. 1069, 1074 (E.D. Pa. 1983); accord

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 565 (1974) (accepting Nebraska system wherein

no provision made for administrative review of disciplinary decisions). 

Case 5:10-cv-01354-JW Document 7 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

See Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 15 § 1073 (applicable to county jails), and § 3084, et

seq. (applicable to state prisons).

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.10\Rodgers01354_dismissal.wpd 3

Furthermore, California Code of Regulations, title 15 sections 1073 and 3084

grant prisoners in the county jails and state prisons a purely procedural right: the

right to have a prison appeal.1

 The regulations simply require the establishment of a

procedural structure for reviewing prisoner complaints and set forth no substantive

standards; instead, they provide for flexible appeal time limits, see Cal. Code Regs.

tit. 15, § 3084.6, and, at most, that “no reprisal shall be taken against an inmate or

parolee for filing an appeal,” id. § 3084.1(d). A provision that merely provides

procedural requirements, even if mandatory, cannot form the basis of a

constitutionally cognizable liberty interest. See Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989

(9th Cir. 1993); see also Antonelli, 81 F.3d at 1430 (prison grievance procedure is

procedural right that does not give rise to protected liberty interest requiring

procedural protections of Due Process Clause); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494,

495 (8th Cir. 1993) (same); Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)

(same). A prison official’s failure to process grievances, without more, accordingly

is not actionable under § 1983. See Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495; see also Ramirez v.

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that prisoner’s claimed loss of a

liberty interest in the processing of his appeals does not violate due process because

prisoners lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance

system). 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to a grievance system, and in

California, he has only the right to the procedural structures set forth in the

regulations which alone are not a basis of a constitutionally cognizable liberty

interest. See Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d at 989. In sum, plaintiff’s claim, even if

true, that the SMCJ grievance system requires more than is required by state

regulations amounts to no more than a state cause of action and therefore is not

cognizable under § 1983. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for failure to

Case 5:10-cv-01354-JW Document 7 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.10\Rodgers01354_dismissal.wpd

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DATED:_____________________ 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

July 21, 2010 

Case 5:10-cv-01354-JW Document 7 Filed 07/22/10 Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL D RODGERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV10-01354 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Russell Dwayne Rodgers D-49999

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

7/22/2010 7/22/2010 /s/

Case 5:10-cv-01354-JW Document 7 Filed 07/22/10 Page 5 of 5