From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Flick v. Alba

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
May 6, 1991
932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1991)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that federal prison administrative remedy procedures “do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure,” and that “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”

Summary of this case from Bingham v. Thomas
See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 90-5564.

Submitted April 29, 1991.

Decided May 6, 1991.

Norman Z. Flick, pro se.

Mary Jo Madigan, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Before ARNOLD, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Norman Z. Flick, an inmate at the Federal Medical Center (FMC) in Rochester, Minnesota, appeals the district court's order granting defendant prison officials' motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

The Honorable Harry H. MacLaughlin, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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").

We note that, in any event, in this case denial of Flick's administrative complaint was in accordance with established procedure.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Summaries of

Flick v. Alba

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
May 6, 1991
932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1991)

holding that federal prison administrative remedy procedures “do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure,” and that “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”

Summary of this case from Bingham v. Thomas

holding that federal prison administrative remedy procedures "do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure," and that "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"

Summary of this case from Nelson v. Lewis

holding that federal prison administrative remedy procedures "do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure," and that "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"

Summary of this case from Brown v. Padgett

holding inmates do not have a constitutional right to participate in grievance procedures

Summary of this case from McElderry v. Saunders

holding that federal prison administrative remedy procedures "do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure," and that "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"

Summary of this case from Daker v. Head

holding that federal prison administrative remedy procedures "do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure," and that "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"

Summary of this case from Rager v. Augustine

holding that the prisoner's First Amendment right of access to courts is not compromised by prison's refusal to entertain grievance

Summary of this case from Crawford v. Beard

holding that federal prison administrative remedy procedures do not "in and of themselves" create a liberty interest in access to that procedure; finding the prisoner's right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, a right that is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance

Summary of this case from Fillman v. Stancil

holding that the prisoner's First Amendment right of access to courts is not compromised by prison's refusal to entertain grievance

Summary of this case from Cotton v. Beard

holding that federal prison administrative remedy procedures "do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure," and that "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"

Summary of this case from Nicely v. Lagman

holding that the prisoner's First Amendment right of access to courts is not compromised by prison's refusal to entertain grievance

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Bradbury

holding prisoner's First Amendment right of access to courts is not compromised by prison's refusal to entertain grievance

Summary of this case from Riley v. Roach

holding that holding "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."

Summary of this case from Cook v. Long

holding "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."

Summary of this case from Watts v. O'Brien

holding that federal regulations providing for administrative remedy procedure do not in and of themselves create liberty interest in access to that procedure

Summary of this case from Zeus Corp. v. City of Decorah

finding that a federal inmate's constitutional rights are not compromised by a prison's refusal to entertain his grievances

Summary of this case from Aiken v. Perry

finding that "regulations providing for an administrative remedy procedure do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure"

Summary of this case from Bandy v. Comm'r of Corr.

concluding "that the federal regulations providing for an administrative remedy procedure [for federal prisoners] do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure"

Summary of this case from Heard v. United States

concluding regulations providing for administrative remedy procedure do not create liberty interests in access to that procedure

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Caldwell Corr. Ctr.

concluding regulations providing for administrative remedy procedure do not create liberty interests in access to that procedure

Summary of this case from Cobb v. Whittington

concluding regulations providing for administrative remedy procedure do not create liberty interests in access to that procedure

Summary of this case from Williams v. Harrold

concluding regulations providing for administrative remedy procedure do not create liberty interests in access to that procedure

Summary of this case from Doc v. Doctor

concluding that while prisoners do have a constitutional right to seek redress of their grievances from the government, that right is the right of access to the courts and such a right is not compromised by the failure of the prison to address an inmate's grievance

Summary of this case from Binkley v. Rendell

concluding that federal regulations providing for an administrative remedy procedure in the Bureau of Prisons "do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure"

Summary of this case from Ward v. Mason

concluding regulations providing for administrative remedy procedure do not create liberty interest in access to that procedure

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Longino
Case details for

Flick v. Alba

Case Details

Full title:NORMAN Z. FLICK, APPELLANT, v. JULIE W. ALBA AND PETER M. CARLSON…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: May 6, 1991

Citations

932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1991)

Citing Cases

Antonelli v. Walters

Finally, even absent lockdown considerations, the defendants correctly note that there is no constitutional…

Roberts v. Conley

The Eighth Circuit has held that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a grievance procedures, and…

1,092 Citing Cases