Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1988

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

David Allen Mann v. James Adams, and Bruce Babbitt, Governor of Arizona
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided October 11, 1988 · Goodwin, Schroeder, Poole
855 F.2d 639 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)
David Allen Mann v. James Adams, and Bruce Babbitt, Governor of Arizona

Cases that cite this one

742 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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In his petition for rehearing, Mann contends that the unpublished administrative policy statements of the Arizona Department of Corrections in establishing a grievance procedure created a protected liberty interest.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 The unpublished policy statements create no protected liberty interest.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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.