green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family (anchor): Norman Z. Flick v. Julie W. Alba… ↗
Issue: civil rights claimNJ ↗
Issue: federal constitutional errorTN ↗
Quoted verbatim 13×
138.1 score
G Cite
cited 19× by 18 distinct cases, 2000–2025 · 11 courts↑ Rising ·
…when the claim underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner's right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance.
at p. 729
✓
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2018–2025 ·
…refusal to entertain such grievances does not compromise the inmate's constitutional rights, as access to the courts would still be available.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 1999–2022 · 4 courts ·
…federal regulations providing for an administrative remedy procedure do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure.
at p. 729
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Penn v. Allen
prisoner's right to petition the 19 government for redress ... is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Fox v. Uribe
prisoner's right to petition 17 the government for redress ... is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his 18 grievance.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Washington v. Magado
prisoner's right to petition the government for 18 redress ... is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hutchinson v. City of Middletown, Ohio
when the claim underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner's right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Fox v. Uribe
prisoner's right to petition 18 the government for redress ... is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his 19 grievance.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Smith v. Contra Costa County Sheriff
prisoner's right to petition the government for redress . . . is not compromised by 7 the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Herrera v. Ortega
prisoner's right to 5 petition the government for redress ... is not compromised by the prison's refusal to 6 entertain his grievance.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Saddozai v. Atchley
prisoner's right to petition the government for 9 redress ... is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Williams v. Smith
prisoner's right to petition the 27 1 government for redress . . . is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his 2 grievance.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Herrera v. Ortega
prisoner's right to petition the 21 government for redress ... is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his 22 grievance.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
GILLMORE v. LAMAS
when the claim underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner's right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Langley v. Wallace
when the claim underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner's right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
James v. Lawrence
when the claim underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner's right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jerry Lee Hairston v. Deputy Myers et al.
Va. Jan. 9, 2009) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James K. Bishop v. Ohio Department of Corrections, et al.
First, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim is premised on his dissatisfaction with the handling of his administrative grievance, that claim fails because “there is no inherent constitutional right to an effective grievance procedure.” Argue v. Hofmeyer, 80 F. App’x 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983); Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994); and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James K. Bishop v. Ohio Department of Corrections, et al.
First, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim is premised on his dissatisfaction with the handling of his administrative grievance, that claim fails because “there is no inherent constitutional right to an effective grievance procedure.” Argue v. Hofmeyer, 80 F. App’x 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983); Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994); and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jalil Shakur Reed v. Kevin Bone, et al.
Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)). facts to make plausible that he made a request for an accommodation under RLUIPA or that the request was based on a sincerely held religious belief and not some other motivation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnny Perez v. Laurel Harry, et al
Inc., 446 F. App’x 400, 403 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)) (“[Blecause a prisoner has no free-standing constitutional right to an effective grievance 16 process, [a prisoner] cannot maintain a constitutional claim...based upon his perception that [the defendant] ignored and/or failed to properly investigate his grievances.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joshua Brereton v. Eric Rardin
The federal regulations that provide for an administrative remedy procedure “do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure.” Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991); see also Davidson v. Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jermeal White v. Unit Manager Chief J. Oppi
First, Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the handling of his administrative grievances fails to state a claim because “there is no inherent constitutional right to an effective grievance procedure.” Argue v. Hofmeyer, 80 F. App’x 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983); Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994); and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alex Peterson v. Vallerie Franrak, et al.
Moreover, to the extent Peterson’s claims are based on the handling of his grievances, they are not plausible because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt, 858 F. App’x at 34 (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Raymond Hill v. Chester County Prison, et al.
(Id. at 5.) As to his complaints about the grievance system, “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001), and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Khalid K. Mack v. Laura Williams, et al.
Claims based on the handling of prison grievances fail because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jason Bliss v. Allentown Police Department, et al.
If he did intend to bring such claims, they are dismissed because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)). 3 Bliss also includes an allegation that he was wrongly kept on parole after “the charges were dropped” and parole officers “lied in Court to hide stuff in [Defendant] Kristen Becks order.” (Compl. at 4.) Shortly after filing this Complaint, Bli…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Joshua Keziah v. Joseph Terra, et al.
Pa. Oct. 7, 2022) (citing Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
STEVEN JAMAL WILLIFORD v. STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.
(See Compl. at 9.) Any claim brought against these Defendants, or any other defendant, based on the grievance process will be dismissed because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anthony Kuzmann v. PrimeCare Corporate Office, et al.
If he did intend to bring such claims, they are dismissed because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)). 4 Because Kuzmann is a prisoner, he must still pay the $350 filing fee for this case in installments as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted); Talley v. W…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MCCARY v. WELLPATH, L.L.C.
Claims based on the handling of prison grievances fail because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
HARDEN v. C.O. NEAL
To the extent Harden seeks to assert a stand-alone claim against C,O, Greene based on the grievance process, it will be dismissed because “prisoners do not have a 12 constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 3d Cir, 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick y, Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MENKINS v. LETIZIO
Compl. at 8-9.) To the extent Menkins attempted to assert a stand-alone claim against Superintendent Terra, Deputy Superintendent Sipple, or any other prison staff member, based on the grievance process, it will be dismissed because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ROBINSON v. LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON & EMPLOYEES
If he did intend to bring such claims, they are dismissed because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)). than he needs “help immediately.” (Id. at 8.) He states he is “claiming habeas corpus” (id. at 7) and filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction after he filed his Complaint, requesting the Court to release him from Lancaster County Prison “i…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MARBET v. JOHN DOE
Claims based on the handling of prison grievances fail because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32, 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Snyder v. Dakota City Correctional Facility
Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CONCEPCION v. RUSSEL
These grievances tend to show that Bonner, Cooper, and Harper were aware of King’s missed medication and may have failed to take corrective action because King continued to miss medication doses.”); Haltiwanger v. Mobley, 230 F.3d 1363 , 2000 WL 1371098 , at *1 (8th Cir. 2000) (reversing the dismissal of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim where have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam))). defendant Goldman “periodically refused” …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PARKS v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Claims Based on Grievances Finally, to the extent Parks attempted to assert a stand-alone claim against Warden McGee based on the grievance process, it will be dismissed because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wooten v. Wasko
Ill. 1982)); see also Lomholt v. Holder, 287 F.3d 683, 684 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LUDWIG v. TERRA
Claims based on the handling of prison grievances fail because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dan v. State of Nebraska
Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mace v. Williams
See Oladipupo v. Austin, et al., 104 F.Supp.2d 626 (W.D.La.2000); Brown v. Dodson, et al., 863 F.Supp. 284 (W.D.Va.1994); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
IN RE: RESHAN SAVAGE BEY
Claims based on the handling of prison grievances fail because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Authement v. Carl
Va. 2000) (citing Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WILLIAMS v. HUNER
Additionally, claims based on the handling of prison grievances fail because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SMITH v. PHILADELPHIA DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS
Claims Based on Grievances Finally, to the extent Smith attempted to assert a stand-alone claim against any of the individual Defendants based on the grievance process, it will be dismissed because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt, 858 F. App’x at 34 (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bell v. Tjeerdsma
IIL. 1982)); see also Lomholt v Holder, 287 F.3d 683, 684 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brewton v. Wright
Further, “there is no constitutional right to participate in grievance proceedings.” Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ABRAMS v. TERRA
All claims based on the handling of his prison grievances are also dismissed because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeanine Anthony v. County of Morris
Winn v. Dep't of Corr., No. 09-1653, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17204 , at *4 (3d Cir. July 28, 2009) (quoting Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 352-53 (2d Cir. 2003) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (11th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
NGUYEN v. JOHNSON
However, claims based on the handling of prison grievances fail because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DETTY v. BECK
Compl. at 10-11, ¶¶ 85-87; id. at 12, ¶ 96 .) As previously noted, Detty, 2025 WL 77080 , at *12, “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MCCARY v. TERRA
(Compl. at 6-7.) Claims based on the handling of prison grievances fail because “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures.” Gerholt v. Wetzel, 858 F. App’x 32 , 34 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) and Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Norman Z. FLICK, Appellant,
v.
Julie W. ALBA and Peter M. Carlson, Appellees
v.
Julie W. ALBA and Peter M. Carlson, Appellees
90-5564.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
May 6, 1991.
Norman Z. Flick, pro se., Mary Jo Madigan, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees.
Arnold, Beam, Per Curiam, Wollman.
Cited by 331 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. California (4)
PER CURIAM.
Norman Z. Flick, an inmate at the Federal Medical Center (FMC) in Rochester, Minnesota, appeals the district court’s [1] order granting defendant prison officials’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Flick filed his Bivens-type complaint against the case manager coordinator and the warden of FMC seeking injunctive relief and damages for their denial of his right of access to the prison’s administrative remedy procedure. We conclude that the federal regulations providing for an administrative remedy procedure do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure. When the claim underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner’s right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his grievance. See Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8, 10 (N.D.Ill.1982) (although state prison grievance procedures “may be evidence of a parent substantive right, they do not in themselves trigger a protected liberty interest”). [2]
Accordingly, we affirm.