Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003), citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) ("There is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure.") "The defendants' disregard for these procedures, or their mishandling of his grievance documents, creates no actionable § 1983 claim." Moody v. Martinez, 42 F.3d 1401 (1994). The Ninth Circuit noted that "[t]he Supreme Court has declared that 'a State creates a protected liberty interest by placing substantive limitations on official discretion[,]'" but found "that Moody's claims . . . contain no actionable allegation of such substantive limits or protected rights."
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Moody v. Martinez, 42 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding no “constitutional entitlement” to a state's grievance procedures”). The Court grants Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiff's Claim Two.
In particular, state law determines the rate of prejudgment interest. Rosendin Elec., Inc. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 42 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1994). Under California law, " prejudgment interest is a matter of right where there is a vested right to recover 'damages certain' as of a particular day."