Opinion ID: 3045775
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: First and Fifth Amendment Claims

Text: Although Caldwell also alleged that Defendants violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights, he offered very few facts in his complaint supporting those claims. The District Court interpreted Caldwell’s First Amendment claim as one arguing that his rights had been violated when the DOC denied his administrative grievance. In doing so, the DOC denied his right to petition the government in violation of the First Amendment. The District Court correctly noted that an inmate has no constitutional right to a grievance procedure. See Flick v. Alba, 932 F. 2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991). Thus, we agree that the DOC’s act of denying Caldwell’s grievance did not infringe upon his constitutional right to petition the government for redress. The District Court also correctly determined that Caldwell did not raise a cognizable Fifth Amendment claim. The claim appears to be based upon the DOC’s alleged denial of due process during the administrative grievance process. As the District Court correctly noted, the due process clause under the Fifth Amendment only protects against federal governmental action and does not limit the actions of state officials. See Riley v. Camp, 130 F.3d 958, 972 n.19 (11th Cir. 1997). The District Court’s decision to deny Caldwell leave to amend his complaint was also proper. Granting a plaintiff leave to amend is not necessary where amendment would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002). Based on the above discussion of Caldwell’s claims, we are satisfied that it would have 6 been an exercise in futility for the District Court to have permitted Caldwell to amend his complaint. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the District Court properly granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. As there is no substantial question presented by this appeal, we will summarily affirm. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 7