Norman Z. Flick v. Julie W. Alba and Peter M. Carlson

932 F.2d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 6, 1991

Full text

Norman Z. FLICK, Appellant, v. Julie W. ALBA and Peter M. Carlson, Appellees

PER CURIAM. Norman Z. Flick, an inmate at the Federal Medical Center (FMC) in Rochester, Minnesota, appeals the district court’s 1 order granting defendant prison officials’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm. Flick filed his Bivens-type complaint against the case manager coordinator and the warden of FMC seeking injunctive relief and damages for their denial of his right of access to the prison’s administrative remedy procedure. We conclude that the federal regulations providing for an administrative remedy procedure do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure. When the claim underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner’s right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his grievance. See Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8, 10 (N.D.Ill.1982) (although state prison grievance procedures “may be evidence of a parent substantive right, they do not in themselves trigger a protected liberty interest”). 2 Accordingly, we affirm. Footnotes [1] The Honorable Harry H. MacLaughlin, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. [2] We note that, in any event, in this case denial of Flick’s administrative complaint was in accordance with established procedure.

Parentheticals

stating that the federal grievance regulations providing for an administrative remedy procedure do not a create liberty interest in access to that procedure.”
Maxfield v. Vanderaa
noting that, although prisoners have federal constitutional rights to 17 petition the government for redress of grievances and access to the courts, those rights are 18 “not compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his grievance”
Chatman v. Cambero
noting that although prisoners have a First Amendment right to petition the 5 government for redress of grievances and access to the courts, those rights are “not 6 compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his grievance.”
Springs v. Raber
noting that although prisoners have a federal constitutional right to petition the 28 government for redress of grievances and access to the courts, those rights are “not 1 compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his grievance.”
Orozco v. Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility
noting that although prisoners have a First Amendment right to petition 8 the government for redress of grievances and access to the courts, those rights are “not 9 compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his grievance.”
Anaya v. Vasquez
noting that although prisoners have 6 federal constitutional rights to petition the government for redress of grievances and of 7 access to the courts, those rights are “not compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain 8 his grievance.”
Rapinoe v. San Diego County Sheriffs Officer
federal grievance regulations providing for administrative remedy procedure do not create liberty interest in access to that procedure
Belt v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
federal regulations providing administrative remedy in Bureau of prisons do not create a liberty interest
Kenneth D. Ford v. Brian K. Clendennen
“prisoner's right to petition the 21 government for redress ... is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his 22 grievance.”
Herrera v. Ortega
“prisoner’s right to petition the 27 1 government for redress . . . is not compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his 2 grievance.”
Williams v. Smith
“prisoner's right to petition the government for 9 redress ... is not compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his grievance.”
Saddozai v. Atchley
“prisoner’s right to 5 petition the government for redress ... is not compromised by the prison's refusal to 6 entertain his grievance.”
Herrera v. Ortega