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

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 11, 1988 · 855 F.2d 639

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/510732

## Case

- **Full name:** David Allen MANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James ADAMS, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees, and Bruce Babbitt, Governor of Arizona, Defendant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 11, 1988
- **Citations:** 855 F.2d 639
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Goodwin, Schroeder, Poole
- **Cited by:** 783 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/510732

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a state’s unpublished policy statements establishing a grievance 7 procedure do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest because there is no legitimate 8 claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure
- stating that due process not violated when defendant failed to properly process grievance because unpublished administrative policy statements in establishing a grievance procedure did not create a protected liberty interest
- holding that a state’s policy statements establishing a grievance procedure do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest 19 because there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure
- holding that there is no protected liberty interest to a grievance procedure

## Opinion text

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In his petition for rehearing, Mann contends that the unpublished administrative policy statements of the Arizona Department of Corrections in establishing a grievance procedure created a protected liberty interest.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/510732. Public record. Not legal advice.