Norman Green, Jr. v. Peter Huibregtse , 527 F. App'x 567 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
    To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted August 15, 2013*
    Decided August 19, 2013
    Before
    FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
    DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
    DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
    No. 12-3121                                                     Appeal from the United
    States District Court for the
    PRINCE ATUM-RA UHURU MUTAWAKKIL,                                Western District of Wiscon-
    also known as NORMAN C. GREEN, JR.,                             sin.
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                               No. 11-cv-471-bbc
    Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.
    PETER HUIBREGTSE, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Order
    This order covers issues omitted from today’s precedential opinion. The district
    court resolved all of these claims summarily, on screening under 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
    1. Mutawakkil contends that some of the defendants gave false testimony in his pro-
    ceeding to change the name on his judgment of conviction. He says that the district
    court overlooked this contention. It did not. The judge dismissed this aspect of the
    complaint because 
    42 U.S.C. §1983
     does not permit a court to hold a witness liable for
    earlier testimony. See Rehberg v. Paulk, 
    132 S. Ct. 1497
     (2012); Briscoe v. LaHue, 
    460 U.S. 325
     (1983). Witnesses have absolute immunity from liability in damages.
    * After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary.
    See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
    No. 12-3121                                                                           Page 2
    2. Defendants declined to pay for a transcript of the state proceeding in which
    Mutawakkil sought to change the name on his judgment of conviction. He contends
    that state law requires the state to pay for the transcript. But the federal Constitution
    does not oblige states to follow their own laws. In other words, §1983 cannot be used to
    enforce state law. See, e.g., Archie v. Racine, 
    847 F.2d 1211
    , 1216–17 & n.5 (7th Cir. 1988)
    (en banc).
    Mutawakkil is free to pursue his state-law claim in state court. He filed this suit in
    state court; defendants removed it on the basis of the complaint’s federal claims. With
    those claims resolved, the state-law claims return to state court. 
    28 U.S.C. §1367
    (c). The
    district court’s judgment was not clear on this, but we modify it to provide explicitly
    that the court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over all claims under state law and
    remands these claims to the court in which suit began.
    3. Mutawakkil contends that some defendants violated the eighth amendment by
    withholding blood-pressure medication from him after becoming confused about who
    the medication was for. The district court correctly dismissed this claim, because
    Mutawakkil does not allege intentional infliction of harm or its equivalent, deliberate
    indifference to a known risk of serious harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
     (1994).
    Nor does he allege injury. Indeed, the complaint suggests to us that the medication was
    not prescribed for Mutawakkil in the first place.
    4. Mutawakkil contends that some defendants violated the due process clause of the
    fourteenth amendment by not responding adequately to his grievances. But the Consti-
    tution does not require prisons to have administrative systems for the redress of griev-
    ances. Absence of an effective grievance system might affect whether a prisoner needs
    to exhaust intra-prison remedies before filing a §1983 suit but is not an independent vio-
    lation of the Constitution. See Owens v. Hinsley, 
    635 F.3d 950
    , 953–54 (7th Cir. 2011);
    Grieveson v. Anderson, 
    538 F.3d 763
    , 772 n.3 (7th Cir. 2008).
    5. Mutawakkil contends that prison officials sometimes opened his mail outside of
    his presence, in violation of Wisconsin law. This claim is outside §1983 but can be pur-
    sued on remand to state court. Mutawakkil may find it difficult to prevail unless he can
    show injury, which his complaint does not allege. See Ortiz v. Downey, 
    561 F.3d 664
    , 671
    (7th Cir. 2009).
    6. Mutawakkil maintains that the prison wrongly confiscated some of his docu-
    ments. To prevail on a claim that lack of documents deprived him of access to the
    courts, he must demonstrate prejudice in a particular suit. See Lewis v. Casey, 
    518 U.S. 343
     (1996). His complaint does not allege any adverse consequence, so this claim was
    properly dismissed.
    The district court’s judgment is modified to provide that claims under state law are
    remanded to state court and, as so modified, is affirmed.