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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Rowland Dewitt Pugh,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1090 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

S. Ransdell, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner without counsel prosecuting this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants

move to dismiss upon the ground plaintiff fails to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff opposes.

Plaintiff’s complaint, including the attachments, alleges

that between November 1, 2000, and December 2001, while plaintiff

was at High Desert State Prison (HDSP), defendants S. Ransdell

and M. Jennings refused to process and log plaintiff’s 

grievances, including one regarding the April 4, 2001, conduct of 

Case 2:04-cv-01090-MCE -PAN Document 10 Filed 06/09/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

HDSP correctional officer Doyle. December 9, 2001, after his 

transfer to Corcoran State Prison, plaintiff submitted a

grievance about defendants’ refusal, requesting they be directed

to log and process plaintiff’s grievances and that they be

directed to stop discriminating and retaliating against

plaintiff.

The second-level reviewer found plaintiff’s HDSP appeal

concerning Doyle was being processed but plaintiff had not

presented any evidence that Ransdell or Jennings had retaliated

or discriminated against plaintiff. The Corcoran appeal was

granted because plaintiff’s HDSP appeals were being processed.

Plaintiff appealed, alleging unspecified problems with

defendants. The appeal was denied upon the ground there was no

unresolved issue to be reviewed on the Director’s Level of

Review.

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the

court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true, read the

complaint most favorably to plaintiff, give plaintiff the benefit

of every reasonable inference that appears from the pleading and

argument of the case and dismiss the complaint only if it is

clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that

could be proved consistent with the allegations. Wheeldin v.

Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 658 (1963); Retail Clerks International

Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746,

754 n.6 (1963); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984). The court may consider documents attached to the

Case 2:04-cv-01090-MCE -PAN Document 10 Filed 06/09/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

complaint in evaluating a motion to dismiss. Parks School of

Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995).

Plaintiff claims defendants refused to process his

grievances in violation of the First Amendment. Defendants

contend this claim should be dismissed because plaintiff fails to

allege their actions caused injury. 

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

allege an identified defendant deprived plaintiff of a right

secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States

while acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.

42, 48-49 (1988). The First Amendment right to petition the

government for redress of grievances includes the right of

meaningful access to the courts which, in turn, includes a

prisoner’s right to use established prison grievance procedures. 

Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995); Sorrano’s

Gasco, Inc., v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989); 

Vlandingham v. Bojorquz, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989). To state

a claim for the denial of access to courts plaintiff must allege

specific acts resulted in the rejection of, or inability to

bring, a nonfrivolous, actionable claim related to his conviction

or conditions of confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353,

355 (1996). 

Plaintiff’s allegations and attachments show prison

officials processed plaintiff’s HDSP grievance and plaintiff does

not allege the way the grievance was handled resulted in the

rejection of, or inability to bring, a nonfrivolous, actionable

Case 2:04-cv-01090-MCE -PAN Document 10 Filed 06/09/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

claim related to his conviction or conditions of confinement. 

Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state a claim.

Plaintiff claims defendants refused to process his

grievances in violation of the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants contend plaintiff’s due process

claim should be dismissed because plaintiff has no liberty

interest in an administrative appeals process. 

For an individual to have a protectable right, he must have

"a legitimate claim of entitlement to it." Greenholtz v. Inmates

of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). 

But prisoners have “no legitimate claim of entitlement to a

grievance procedure." Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988). Since plaintiff has no

constitutionally protected interest in a grievance procedure, he

cannot state a claim.

For these reasons, defendants’ November 1, 2004, motion to

dismiss should be granted and this action should be dismissed.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 9, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-01090-MCE -PAN Document 10 Filed 06/09/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01090-MCE -PAN Document 10 Filed 06/09/05 Page 5 of 5