Opinion

Brown v. Dodson

  • 863 F. Supp. 284
  • 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18069
  • 1994 WL 538130
Court
District Court, W.D. Virginia
Filed
Jun 2, 1994
Status
Published
Author
Turk
On the bench
Turk
Cited by
12 cases
Authority
More cited than 59.4%

The opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TURK, District Judge.

JAY B. BROWN, JR., a Virginia inmate proceeding

pro se,

brings this action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , with jurisdiction vested under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 . In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants have not been following prison grievance procedures in responding to his grievances at Keen Mountain Correctional Center. He seeks injunctive relief to correct the problem and receive proper responses to his grievances.

Upon consideration of the complaint and affidavit of poverty accompanying the complaint, the court is of the opinion that the complaint should be filed

in forma pauperis

and that the action should be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). A complaint filed

in forma pauperis

may be dismissed under this section if it is based on “indisputably meritless legal theories” or “clearly baseless” factual contentions.

Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319 , 109 S.Ct. 1827 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law.

West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42 , 108 S.Ct. 2250 , 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988). Inmates do not have a constitutionally protected right to a grievance procedure.

Flick v. Alba,

932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir.1991). Because a state grievance procedure does not confer any substantive constitutional right upon prison inmates, prison officials’ failure to comply with the state’s grievance procedure is not actionable under § 1983.

Mann v. Adams,

855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988),

cert. denied,

488 U.S. 898 , 109 S.Ct. 242 , 102 L.Ed.2d 231 (1988);

Azeez v. DeRobertis,

568 F.Supp. 8, 9-11 (N.D.Ill.1982). Moreover, because state grievance procedures are separate and distinct from state and federal legal procedures, an institution’s failure to comply with state grievance procedures does not compromise its inmates’ right of access to the courts.

Flick, supra.

Under these principles, it is clear that plaintiffs allegations do not state a claim that he has been deprived of constitutional rights.

Id.

Even assuming defendants have violated state grievance procedures as alleged, such actions do not state a claim actionable under § 1983.

Mann

and

West, supra.

Accordingly, plaintiffs complaint shall be dismissed, pursuant to § 1915(d). An appropriate order shall be entered this day.

The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this memorandum opinion and accompanying order to plaintiff and to counsel of record for the defendants.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.