855 F.2d 639 - Mann v. Adams — 855 F.2d 639

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Antonelli v. Sheahan (1996), Ramirez v. Galaza (2003)

22 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1See 109 S.Ct. 242.

¶2 *640Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and POOLE, Circuit Judges.

¶3ORDER

¶4In his petition for rehearing, Mann contends that the unpublished administrative policy statements of the Arizona Department of Corrections in establishing a grievance procedure created a protected liberty interest.

¶5The 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 The unpublished policy statements create no protected liberty interest.

¶6The panel as constituted above has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

¶7The 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).

¶8The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.