Opinion ID: 615359
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Administrative Complaint Claims

Text: The District Court properly granted summary judgment on claims regarding Blanchard’s administrative complaints. A prisoner does not have the constitutional right to a prison grievance procedure. See Jones v. N.C. Prisoners’ Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119, 138 (1977) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (“I do not suggest that the [prison grievance] 4 procedures are constitutionally mandated”); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001). A prisoner, however, has a constitutional right of access to the courts. Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008). An access to the court claim requires that a prisoner demonstrate that defendants’ actions prevented him from litigating a nonfrivolous, arguable legal claim. See id. at 205-06. Blanchard alleged that Gallick was lax with providing him forms to file administrative complaints; that Troutman and Wolever withheld his complaints; that Kaminski, Mattack, and Vitale refused to assist him with the administrative complaint forms; and that Motta, Martinez, Dodrill, and Watts withheld a complaint and should have ordered defendants Kaminski, Mattack, and Vitale to assist him in completing administrative complaint forms. Blanchard, however, has not presented any evidence to show that defendants’ actions deprived him of the right to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim.2 Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted.