Phillipi v. Patterson

6 Citing cases

  1. Reynolds v. Madden

    21-cv-00955-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    (dismissing prisoner's claims against appeals officials alleged to have “failed to correct” other official's “errors” via CDCR 602 inmate appeal procedures pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A); Thomas v. Matevousian, 2018 WL 1452261 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2018) (“Actions in reviewing a prisoner's administrative appeal generally cannot serve as the basis for liability in a section 1983 action.”); Phillipi v. Patterson, 2014 WL 11774836 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014) (“[D]enial of an inmate appeal ... does not state a cognizable constitutional violation”), affd,

  2. Reynolds v. Madden

    3:21-cv-00955-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2021)

    (“Actions in reviewing a prisoner's administrative appeal generally cannot serve as the basis for liability in a section 1983 action.”); Phillipi v. Patterson, 2014 WL 11774836 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014) (“[D]enial of an inmate appeal . . . does not state a cognizable constitutional violation”), aff'd, 599 Fed.Appx. 288 (9th Cir. 2015);

  3. Uhuru v. Bonnifield

    Case No. 2:19-cv-10449-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    To the extent the FAC alleges that Warden Gastelo and CRM Bonnifield misinterpreted and improperly denied Plaintiff's administrative grievances (FAC at 15-16), these allegations are insufficient to state a claim. Courts in this circuit generally agree that denying a prisoner's grievance does not, by itself, lead to liability. See Phillipi v. Patterson, No. 13-01514, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105865 at *7, 2014 WL 11774836 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014) ( "denial of an inmate appeal ... does not state a cognizable constitutional violation"), aff'd, 599 F. App'x 288 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Baldhosky v. Hubbard, No. 12-01200, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45667 at*8-9, 2018 WL 1392058, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2018) ("denial of a prisoner's administrative requests generally does not cause or contribute to any underlying constitutional violation" unless prison administrators "willfully turn a blind eye to constitutional violations being committed by subordinates"); Thomas v. Matevousian, No. 17-1592, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46663 at*9, 2018 WL 1452261 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2018) ("Actions in reviewing a prisoner's administrative appeal generally cannot serve as the basis for liability in a section 1983 action."). Moreover, as discussed further below, the FAC fails to allege facts demonstrating that Plaintiff's rights under the Free Exercise Clause or RLUIPA were violated; thus, Defendants' denial of Plaintiff's grievances raising these c

  4. Kenney v. Carp

    Case No. 2:19-cv-05759-AB-KES (C.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2019)

    Courts in this circuit generally agree that denying an inmate appeal does not, by itself, lead to liability. See Phillipi v. Patterson, No. 13-01514, 2014 WL 11774836 at *3, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105865 at *7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014) (citing George for the proposition that "denial of an inmate appeal ... does not state a cognizable constitutional violation"), aff'd sub nom. Phillippi v. Patterson, 599 F. App'x 288 (9th Cir. 2015); Baldhosky v. Hubbard, No. 12-01200, 2018 WL 1392058, at *3, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45667 at*8-9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2018) (dismissing "claims alleging that individuals who[se] identities are apparently presently unknown reviewed his health care services requests and failed to act in violation of his constitutional rights," citing George, and noting that "denial of a prisoner's administrative requests generally does not cause or contribute to any underlying constitutional violation" unless prison administrators "willfully turn a blind eye to constitutional violations being committed by subordinates"); Thomas v. Matevousian, No. 17-1592, 2018 WL 1452261 at *4, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46663 at*9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2018) ("Actions in reviewing a prisoner's administrative appeal generally can

  5. Fiorito v. Anderson

    Case No. 5:18-cv-00506-JFW-KES (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007). Courts in this circuit generally agree that denying an inmate appeal does not, by itself, lead to liability. See Phillipi v. Patterson, No. 13-01514, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105865 at *7, 2014 WL 11774836 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014) (citing George for the proposition that "denial of an inmate appeal ... does not state a cognizable constitutional violation"), aff'd, 599 F. App'x 288 (9th Cir. 2015); Baldhosky v. Hubbard, No. 12-01200, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45667 at*8-9, 2018 WL 1392058, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2018) (dismissing "claims alleging that individuals who[se] identities are apparently presently unknown reviewed his health care services requests and failed to act in violation of his constitutional rights," citing George, and noting that "denial of a prisoner's administrative requests generally does not cause or contribute to any underlying constitutional violation" unless prison administrators "willfully turn a blind eye to constitutional violations being committed by subordinates"); Thomas v. Matevousian, No. 17-1592, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46663 at*9, 2018 WL 1452261 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2018) ("Actions in reviewing a prisoner's administrative appeal generally cannot serve as the basis for liabi

  6. Fiorito v. Anderson

    Case No. 5:18-cv-00506-JFW-KES (C.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2018)

    Courts in this circuit generally agree that denying an inmate appeal does not, by itself, lead to liability. See Phillipi v. Patterson, No. 13-01514, 2014 WL 11774836 at *3, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105865 at *7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014) (citing George for the proposition that "denial of an inmate appeal ... does not state a cognizable constitutional violation"), aff'd sub nom. Phillippi v. Patterson, 599 F. App'x 288 (9th Cir. 2015); Baldhosky v. Hubbard, No. 12-01200, 2018 WL 1392058, at *3, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45667 at*8-9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2018) (dismissing "claims alleging that individuals who[se] identities are apparently presently unknown reviewed his health care services requests and failed to act in violation of his constitutional rights," citing George, and noting that "denial of a prisoner's administrative requests generally does not cause or contribute to any underlying constitutional violation" unless prison administrators "willfully turn a blind eye to constitutional violations being committed by subordinates"); Thomas v. Matevousian, No. 17-1592, 2018 WL 1452261 at *4, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46663 at*9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2018) ("Actions in reviewing a prisoner's administrative appeal generally canno