Mann v. Adams
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026(PC) Harris v. Felix
- 2026(PC)Pittman v. Macomber
- 2026Reed W.D. Va.
- 2026Pitts D. Haw.
- 2026Burke W.D. Va.
- 2026Cheripka W.D. Va.
- 2026Touchet D. Ariz.
- 2026Clandenin E.D. Cal.
- 2026Frye E.D. Va.
- 2026Teigan W.D. Va.
Cites 4 cases
- Allen v. Board of Pardons
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex
- Shango v. Jurich
- Olim v. Wakinekona
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
David Allen MANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James ADAMS, et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Bruce Babbitt, Governor of Arizona, Defendant.
Judges
- Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
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In his petition for rehearing, Mann contends that the unpublished administrative policy statements of the Arizona Department of Corrections in establishing a grievance procedure created a protected liberty interest.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 The unpublished policy statements create no protected liberty interest.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.