ANCTIL v. FITZPATRICK et al
Filing
25
REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 24 Amended Complaint filed by STEVE ANCTIL JR. Objections to R&R due by 6/17/2016. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
STEVE ANCTIL, JR.,
Plaintiff
v.
JOSEPH FITZPATRICK, et al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:16-cv-00107-JAW
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER SCREENING
AMENDED COMPLAINT
On March 8, 2016, after screening Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e) and 1915A, I recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 9.)
Subsequently, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint (ECF No. 16), which motion was granted.
(ECF No. 23.) In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to ensure that
Plaintiff’s prison grievances were properly investigated and addressed. (Am. Compl., ECF No.
24.) He requests declaratory relief, damages, and an injunction requiring the Department of
Corrections to amend its prison grievance policies. Upon review of Plaintiff’s allegations, I
recommend1 the Court afford Plaintiff another opportunity to amend his complaint, and in the
event Plaintiff fails to state an actionable claim, the Court dismiss this action.2
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter in forma pauperis, a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s amended
complaint is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In addition, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is subject to screening
“before docketing, if feasible or … as soon as practicable after docketing,” because he is “a prisoner seek[ing] redress
from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 29 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
1
The Court referred “the motion for leave to amend the complaint to the Magistrate Judge to allow him to review the
proposed allegations, determine whether the motion for leave to amend the complaint should be granted, revisit the
recommended decision, if necessary, and determine whether the allegations in the Amended Complaint survive
judicial screening.” (Status Order, ECF No. 22.)
2
1
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Upon review of the prior recommended decision, Plaintiff evidently concluded that his
complaint was deficient because he failed to include sufficient facts regarding his grievance
activity. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff describes in some detail his history of filing prison
grievances regarding a variety of conditions and incidents at the Maine State Prison. According
to the allegations in the amended complaint, most of Plaintiff’s grievances focused on the
grievance procedure itself and the manner in which Defendants responded to or ignored Plaintiff’s
grievances. Consistent with that focus, in this case, Plaintiff asserts that the harm for which he
requests relief is Defendants’ failure to follow the prison grievance procedures, and Defendants’
failure to issue grievance receipts to prisoners, which the grievance policy does not currently
require and thus would involve an amendment of the prison grievance policy.
DISCUSSION
When determining whether a prisoner has asserted an actionable civil rights claim, courts
assess (1) whether the prisoner has identified an underlying event or occurrence that could support
a finding that he suffered the deprivation of a constitutional or other federal right as the result of
state action by a particular defendant and (2) whether the prisoner has requested appropriate relief
for the deprivation from the appropriate defendant(s). 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Johnson v. Rodriguez,
943 F.2d 104, 108 (1st Cir. 1991). In other words, in the context of prisoner civil rights litigation,
the focus is the merit of the prisoner’s substantive claim, and not whether the prison has followed
its grievance process.
Courts do not focus on whether a prison followed its grievance procedures because “state
grievance procedures do not create substantive liberty interests protected by due process.”
Courtney v. Devore, 595 Fed. App’x 618, 620 – 21 (7th Cir. 2014) (unpublished). See also Flick
2
v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (“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.”); Charriez v. Sec’y, Florida Dep’t of Corr., 596 Fed.
App’x 890, 895 (11th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (“Because the prison grievance procedure does not
create a protected liberty interest, Charriez does not have a federal constitutional right within that
administrative-grievance procedure.”); Von Hallcy v. Clements, 519 Fed. App’x 521, 523 (10th
Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (“Von Hallcy cannot state a due process claim based on allegations of an
ineffective grievance reporting system.”); Brown v. Graham, 470 Fed. App’x 11, 13 (2d Cir. 2012)
(“Brown’s argument that he has a federally-protected liberty interest in the state’s compliance with
its own prison grievance procedures is meritless.”); Butler v. Brown, 58 Fed. App’x. 712 (9th Cir.
2003) (“[A] prisoner has no constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.”); Young v. Gundy,
30 Fed. App’x. 568, 569 – 70 (6th Cir. 2002) (unpublished) (“[T]here is no inherent constitutional
right to an effective prison grievance procedure.”). Because prison grievance procedures are not
mandated or governed by the Constitution or other federal law, 3 Plaintiff’s attempt to assert a
claim based on Defendants’ alleged failure to follow the prison’s procedures or to assert a claim
based on the appropriateness of Defendants’ procedures fails.
Although Plaintiff’s allegations, either separately or in combination, do not assert a claim
for violation of a constitutional or other federal right, Plaintiff, when describing the alleged
3
As explained in the earlier recommended decision, the constitutional procedural requirements are governed by Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 529, 564 – 71 (1974). These requirements are imposed on prison administrators, not on
prisoners, and the Wolff requirements specify procedures that prison administrators must follow when they impose
punishment that causes a significant change in the conditions of confinement. McGuinness v. Dubois, 75 F.3d 794,
797 & n.3 (1st Cir. 1996) (discussing Wolff and footnoting the significance of Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995),
in directing the focus toward the “nature of the deprivation” rather than compliance with the terms of prison
regulations).
3
procedural irregularities, references grievances he filed regarding an adverse cell transfer, harm at
the hands of other prisoners, inability to access legal materials, opened legal mail, interference
with access to counsel, inadequate or denied medical care, and other matters that could form the
basis for a federal civil rights action against one or more individuals who might be responsible for
the alleged conduct. While Plaintiff’s complaint cannot reasonably be construed to assert a claim
based on the subject matter of any of the grievances, Plaintiff conceivably could have intended to
assert such a claim. To clarify Plaintiff’s intent, leave for Plaintiff to amend further his complaint
is warranted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 29 U.S.C. §
1915A(a), I recommend the Court find that Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state an
actionable claim and that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint unless, before the expiration of
the 14-day objection period, Plaintiff asserts an actionable claim in an amended complaint.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought,
together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served
with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de
novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court's order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 31st day of May, 2016.
4
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?