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

Eighth Circuit

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

932 F.2d 728, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 8475, 1991 WL 70361

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1991

Docket90-5564

StatusPublished

Cited by331 cases

This text of 932 F.2d 728 (Norman Z. Flick v. Julie W. Alba and Peter M. Carlson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norman Z. Flick v. Julie W. Alba and Peter M. Carlson, 932 F.2d 728, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 8475, 1991 WL 70361 (8th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

932 F.2d 728, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 8475, 1991 WL 70361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-z-flick-v-julie-w-alba-and-peter-m-carlson-ca8-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack