Cruz v. Gipson

Summary

The court recommends dismissal without leave to amend of Manuel Luis Cruz’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning the delayed prison disciplinary hearing and handling of his inmate grievances. It concludes that an alleged violation of prison regulations requiring a timely hearing does not, without more, establish a federal due process violation, and that prisoners have no standalone due process right to a particular grievance process. The court also orders the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge and advises Plaintiff of the deadline for filing objections.

Holdings

1. The alleged failure to hold the disciplinary hearing within a thirty-day period required by prison regulations did not state a cognizable federal due process claim because the Constitution requires the procedures identified in Wolff v. McDonnell, not compliance with more generous prison procedures.
2. The denial, rejection, screening, review, or cancellation of an inmate grievance does not, by itself, violate due process or create a cognizable § 1983 claim.
3. Dismissal without leave to amend was recommended because Plaintiff's claims were legally noncognizable and amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged failure to hold a prison disciplinary hearing within thirty days of sentencing stated a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the denial, rejection, screening, or inadequate processing of Plaintiff's inmate grievances stated a standalone due process claim.
3. Whether amendment would be futile and the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend.

Disposition

other