(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,
(“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);
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
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
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
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