Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the petitioner argued that the Arizona Department of Corrections' unpublished administrative policy statements related to grievance procedures established a protected liberty interest. The primary legal issue concerned whether these policy statements imposed substantive limitations on official discretion, thereby creating a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court referenced Supreme Court precedents, including Olim v. Wakinekona and Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, to determine that a state creates a protected liberty interest only by imposing substantive limitations on official discretion and that a legitimate claim of entitlement is necessary to establish such a right. The Court concluded that the unpublished policy statements did not create a protected liberty interest, aligning with case law such as Shango v. Jurich and Azeez v. DeRobertis. Consequently, the panel denied the petitioner's request for a rehearing and rejected the suggestion for a rehearing en banc, affirming the initial decision and leaving Mann without relief under the claimed grievance procedures.
Legal Issues Addressed
Creation of Protected Liberty Interestsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court determined that the Arizona Department of Corrections' unpublished administrative policy statements regarding grievance procedures do not create a protected liberty interest.
Reasoning: The Court highlighted that to have a protectable right, an individual must possess a legitimate claim of entitlement, citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex.
Denial of Petition for Rehearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The panel unanimously voted against Mann's petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc was also rejected.
Reasoning: The panel voted to deny Mann's petition for rehearing and rejected the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
Legitimate Claim of Entitlementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court applied established precedents to conclude that Mann did not have a legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure.
Reasoning: The Court concluded that there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure, supported by case law such as Shango v. Jurich and Azeez v. DeRobertis.