Crane v. Mantel et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 11/17/08. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. D.M. MANTEL, et al., Defendants. RICHARD CRANE, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 08-4300 JF (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. He claims that Defendants, three Appeals Coordinators at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP") have been improperly processing, denying, and "screening out" administrative appeals filed by him and other inmates. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. DISCUSSION A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify Order of Dismissal G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Crane4300_dism.wpd 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The denial of or failure to process properly prison administrative appeals does not constitute a violation of a prisoner's constitutional rights. There is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 565 (1974) (noting, without criticism, Nebraska system contained no provision for administrative review of disciplinary decisions). As Plaintiff has no constitutional right in the first instance to file administrative appeals, Defendants' alleged denial and failure to process properly Plaintiff's appeals does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Consequently, Plaintiff's allegations as to the processing of his administrative appeals do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 1983. CONCLUSION For the reasons described above, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 11/17/08 JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge Order of Dismissal G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Crane4300_dism.wpd 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?