NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1


# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 15, 2013 *

Decided August 19 , 2013



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Chief Judge

D IANE P. W OOD , Circuit Judge

D AVID F. H AMILTON , Circuit Judge

No. 12

- 3121

P RINCE A TUM

- R A U HURU M UTAWAKKIL , also known as N ORMAN C. G REEN , J R ., Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v

.

P ETER H UIBREGTSE , et al

. , Defendant s

- Appellee s

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisco nsin

.

No. 11

- cv

- 471

- bbc Barbara B. Crabb

, Judge

.

Order

This order covers issues omitted from today’s precedential opinion

. The district court resolved all of these claims summarily, on screening under 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

1. Mutawakkil contends that some of the defendants gave false testimony in his pr oceeding to change the name on his judgment of conviction. He says that the district court overlooked this contention. It did not. The judge dismissed this aspect of the complaint because 42 U.S.C. §1983 does not pe rmit a court to hold a witness liable for earlier testimony . See Rehberg v. Pa u lk , 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012); Briscoe v. LaHue , 460 U.S. 325 (1983). Witnesses have absolute immunity from liability in damages.

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).No. 12

- 3121 Page 2

2. Defendants declined to pay for a transcript of the state proceeding in which Mutawakkil sought to change the name on his judgment of conviction. He contends that state law requires the state to pay for the transcript. But the federal Constitution does not oblige states to follow their own laws. In othe r words, §1983 cannot be used to enforce state law. See, e.g., Archie v. Racine , 847 F.2d 1211, 1216

– 17 & n.5 (7th Cir. 1988) (en banc)

. Mutawakkil is free to pursue his s tate

- law claim in state court. He filed this suit in state court; defendants removed it on the basis of the complaint’s federal claims. With those claims resolved, the state

- law claims return to state court. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c). The district court’s judgment was not clear on this, but we modify it to provide explicitly that the court relin quishes supplemental jurisdiction over all claims under state law and remands these claims to the court in which suit began.

3. Mutawakkil contends that some defendants violated the eighth amendment by withholding blood

- pressure medication from him after becoming confused about who the medication was for. The district court correctly dismissed this claim, because Mutawakkil does not allege intentional infliction o f harm or its equivalent, deliberate indifference to a known risk of serious harm. S ee Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825 (1994)

. Nor does he allege injury. Indeed, the complaint suggests to us that the medication was not prescribed for Mutawakkil in the first place.

4. Mutawakkil contends that some defendants violated the due process clause of the f ourteenth amendment by not responding adequately to his grievances. But the Const itution does not require prisons to have administrative systems for the redress of grie vances. Absence of an effective grievance system might affect whether a prisoner needs

t o exhaust intra

- prison remedies before filing a §1983 suit but is not an independent vi olation of the Constitution. See Owens v. Hinsle y , 635 F.3d 950, 953

– 54 (7th Cir. 2011); Grieveson v. Anderson , 538 F.3d 763, 772 n.3 (7th Cir. 2008).

5. Mutawakkil contends that prison officials sometimes opened his mail outside of his presence, in violation of Wisconsin law. This claim is outside §1983 but can be pu rsued on remand to state court. Mutawakkil may find it difficult to prevail unless he can show injury, which his complaint does not allege. See Ortiz v. Downey , 561 F.3d 664, 671 (7th Cir. 2009).

6. Mutawakkil maintains that the prison wrongly confiscated some of his doc uments. To preva il on a claim that lack of documents deprived him of access to the

cou rts, he must demonstrate prejudice in a particular suit. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343 (1996). His complaint does not allege any adverse consequence , so this claim was properly dismissed.

The district court’s judgment is modified to provide that claims under state law are remanded to state court and, as so modified, is affirmed.