From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buckley v. Barlow

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Jul 8, 1993
997 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1993)

Summary

holding that a prison grievance procedure is not a substantive right and “does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment”

Summary of this case from Martin v. Staff/Employess USP Pollock

Opinion

No. 93-1302.

Submitted June 25, 1993.

Decided July 8, 1993.

Appellant, pro se.

William A. Hill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Des Moines, IA, for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.


Eddie O. Buckley, Jr., an Iowa inmate, appeals the magistrate judge's judgment in favor of defendants in two consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. We affirm.

The Honorable Celeste F. Bremer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

In November 1991, Buckley filed a section 1983 complaint alleging that Richard Barlow refused to pick up his completed grievance forms, and Christopher Meek condoned Barlow's actions by refusing to answer Buckley's letters or investigate his grievances. In February 1992, Buckley filed a complaint against Debbie Nichols, records clerk, Don Mallinger, business accountant, and Crispus Nix, warden. He claimed that their continued deduction of one half of his $7.50 "idle pay" from his prison account pursuant to a disciplinary committee's restitution order amounted to cruel and unusual punishment because it deprived him of the ability to purchase some personal hygiene items (e.g., body lotions and hair grease) and postage for personal mail. Buckley also claimed that the restitution order was unconstitutional because he had not been afforded a jury hearing as required by the Seventh Amendment.

Buckley was ordered to pay $297 for a mattress and thermostat he damaged while at Oakdale Medical Security Facility.

"To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. . ." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2255-56, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988). While a violation of a state-created liberty interest can amount to a violation of the Constitution, not every violation of state law or state-mandated procedures is a violation of the Constitution. See, e.g., Meis v. Gunter, 906 F.2d 364, 369 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1028, 111 S.Ct. 682, 112 L.Ed.2d 673 (1991). "`The simple fact that state law prescribes certain procedures does not mean that the procedures thereby acquire a federal constitutional dimension.'" Vruno v. Schwarzwalder, 600 F.2d 124, 130-31 (8th Cir. 1979) (quoting Slotnick v. Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1077, 98 S.Ct. 1268, 55 L.Ed.2d 783 (1978)).

We conclude Buckley's first complaint failed to state a claim because no constitutional right was violated by the defendants' failure, if any, to process all of the grievances he submitted for consideration. Cf. Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (federal grievance regulations providing for administrative remedy procedure do not create liberty interest in access to that procedure) (citing with approval Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8 (N.D.Ill. 1982)). "[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates. Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment." Azeez, 568 F. Supp. at 10. Thus, defendants' failure to process any of Buckley's grievances, without more, is not actionable under section 1983.

Contrary to Buckley's assertion in his second complaint, he had no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a prison disciplinary setting. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2978-83, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Buckley did not assert that he had state-created liberty interest in a jury trial in that context. We also conclude that Buckley's allegations that he was denied certain personal hygiene items were insufficient to state a claim for cruel and unusual punishment. Cf. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981) (Eighth Amendment prohibits depriving inmates of "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities"); Porth v. Farrier, 934 F.2d 154, 157 (8th Cir. 1991) (discomfort does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment; conduct must be so inhumane, base or barbaric as to shock sensibilities); Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 137 (8th Cir. 1989) (inmates are entitled to reasonably adequate sanitation and personal hygiene).

Accordingly, we affirm.


Summaries of

Buckley v. Barlow

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Jul 8, 1993
997 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1993)

holding that a prison grievance procedure is not a substantive right and “does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment”

Summary of this case from Martin v. Staff/Employess USP Pollock

holding that inmates have no liberty interest in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison officials' failure to pick up inmate's completed grievance forms or investigate inmate's grievances

Summary of this case from Yanga v. Neb. Dep't of Corr. Servs.

holding that a prison grievance procedure is not a substantive right and "does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the [F]ourteenth [A]mendment"

Summary of this case from Bogus v. Lumpkin

holding that inmates have no "liberty interest" in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison officials' failure to pick up inmate's completed grievance forms or investigate inmate's grievances

Summary of this case from Stanko v. Sheridan Cnty.

holding that a prison grievance procedure is not a substantive right and "does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment"

Summary of this case from Vaughn v. Ortiz

holding that inmates have no liberty interest in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison officials' failure to pick up inmate's completed grievance forms or investigate inmate's grievances

Summary of this case from Yanga v. Neb. Dep't Corr. Servs.

holding that "no constitutional right was violated by the defendants' failure, if any, to process all of the grievances [plaintiff] submitted for consideration"

Summary of this case from Baird v. Bergenson

holding that inmates have no "liberty interest" in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison officials' failure to pick up inmate's completed grievance forms or investigate inmate's grievances

Summary of this case from Narcisse v. Reyolds

holding that "no constitutional right was violated by the defendants' failure, if any, to process all of the grievances [plaintiff] submitted for consideration"

Summary of this case from Newman v. Muhlenberg Cnty. Det. Ctr.

holding that "no constitutional right was violated by the defendants' failure, if any, to process all of the grievances [plaintiff] submitted for consideration"

Summary of this case from Violett v. King

holding that no constitutional violation arose from officer's failure to process prison grievances because a prison grievance procedure "does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment"

Summary of this case from Covington v. Stuckey-Parchmon

holding that inmates have no liberty interest in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison officials' failure to pick up inmate's completed grievance forms or investigate inmate's grievances

Summary of this case from Smith v. Iverson

holding that "no constitutional right was violated by the defendants' failure, if any, to process all of the grievances [plaintiff] submitted for consideration"

Summary of this case from Williams v. Underwood

holding that "no constitutional right was violated by the defendants' failure, if any, to process all of the grievances [plaintiff] submitted for consideration"

Summary of this case from Cutsinger v. Louisville Metro Dep't of Corr.

holding that inmates have no "liberty interest" in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison officials' failure to pick up inmate's completed grievance forms or investigate inmate's grievances

Summary of this case from McGrone v. Boyd

holding prison grievance process is a procedural right only, and as such "does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment"

Summary of this case from Langley v. Wallace

holding that official's failure to process inmates' grievances, without more, is not actionable under § 1983

Summary of this case from Hunnicutt v. Moore

holding prison grievance process is a procedural right only, and as such "does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment"

Summary of this case from James v. Kelley

holding that inmates have no "liberty interest" in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison official's failure to pick up his completed grievance forms

Summary of this case from Collins v. Frakes

holding that "no constitutional right was violated by the defendants' failure, if any, to process all of the grievances [plaintiff] submitted for consideration"

Summary of this case from Pernestti v. Boyd

holding that inmates have no "liberty interest" in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison officials' failure to pick up inmate's completed grievance forms or investigate inmate's grievances

Summary of this case from Mack v. Ricketts

holding that inmates have no "liberty interest" in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison officials' failure to pick up inmate's completed grievance forms or investigate inmate's grievances

Summary of this case from Dan v. Douglas Cnty.

holding that inmates have no "liberty interest" in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison official's failure to pick up his completed grievance forms

Summary of this case from Nelson v. Hjorth

holding that inmates have no "liberty interest" in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison official's failure to pick up his completed grievance forms

Summary of this case from Dvorak v. Nebraska

holding that inmates have no "liberty interest" in the processing of their grievances, such as would support § 1983 claim for prison official's failure to pick up his completed grievance forms

Summary of this case from Brown v. Kroll
Case details for

Buckley v. Barlow

Case Details

Full title:EDDIE O. BUCKLEY, JR., APPELLANT, v. BARLOW, COUNSELOR; CHRISTOPHER MEEK…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Jul 8, 1993

Citations

997 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1993)

Citing Cases

Hightower v. Schwarzenegger

As plaintiff was already informed by the court in its order of February 24, 2006, involvement in the…

Chand v. Corizon Med.

Prison grievance procedures do not create a protected liberty interest and, as a consequence, do not…