David Allen Mann v. James Adams, and Bruce Babbitt, Governor of Arizona

855 F.2d 639
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 11, 1988·No. 87-1925·Published·Cited by 735 cases

Opinion

ORDER

In his petition for rehearing, Mann contends that the unpublished administrative policy statements of the Arizona Department of Corrections in establishing a grievance procedure created a protected liberty interest.

The Supreme Court has held that “a State creates a protected liberty by placing substantive limitations on official discretion.” Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1747, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983). The Supreme Court has also held that to obtain a protectable right an individual must have “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2104, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979); see also Allen v. Board of Pardons, 792 F.2d 1404, 1407 (9th Cir.1986), aff'd, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2415, 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987). There is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure. See Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100 (7th Cir.1982); Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8, 11 (N.D.Ill.1982). The unpublished policy statements create no protected liberty interest.

The panel as constituted above has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App.P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

David Allen Mann v. James Adams, and Bruce Babbitt, Governor of Arizona, 855 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1988).

855 F.2d 639 (David Allen Mann v. James Adams, and Bruce Babbitt, Governor of Arizona) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis 330803 v. Suckle
D. Arizona, 2025
(PC) DePonte v. Shepard
E.D. California, 2025
(PC) Coffer v. Mosely
E.D. California, 2025
Murillo v. Smith
N.D. California, 2025
Harper v. Taylor
D. Oregon, 2025
Ewalan v. St Germain
W.D. Washington, 2022
Brian T. Hill v. Ralph Diaz
C.D. California, 2022
Martinez v. Nurse Laura
D. New Mexico, 2022
Cain v. Kiser
W.D. Virginia, 2022
Fields v. Schmittinger
W.D. Virginia, 2022
Bosarge v. Brown
W.D. Washington, 2022
Topping v. Dunn
S.D. Alabama, 2021
Smith v. Jones
E.D. Virginia, 2021
Redfox v. Jones
D. Alaska, 2021