September 27, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF… v. MARTY GARRISON, Davis Correctional Facility Investigator

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
September 27, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL LAMONT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARTY GARRISON, Davis
Correctional Facility Investigator,
Defendant - Appellee,
BERRY, Unit Manager, Davis
Correctional Facility; TERRI
UNDERWOOD, Grievance
Coordinator,
Defendants.
No. 21-7010
(D.C. No. 6:18-CV-00152-RAW-SPS)
(E.D. Okla.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 21-7010 Document: 010110582433 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Proceeding pro se, Oklahoma state prisoner Daniel Johnson appeals the
district court’s dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim he
brought against defendant Marty Garrison pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Although Johnson’s complaint contained numerous allegations against multiple
defendants, the only remaining claim is the due process claim “against defendant
Garrison based on grievance No. 2016-1001-00106-G.” Johnson v. Garrison, 805
F. App’x 589, 595 (10th Cir. 2020). In this grievance, Johnson asserted Garrison
failed to thoroughly and impartially investigate allegations he made about
violations of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”).
To the extent Johnson’s due process claim is premised on processes
afforded him under the PREA, the district court correctly concluded Johnson has
failed to show the PREA provides an inmate with a private right of action,
enforceable under § 1983, to challenge that process. Alternatively, Johnson’s
§ 1983 claim could be construed as an assertion his right to due process was
violated by the mishandling of his prison grievance against Garrison. Again,
however, Johnson has failed to show that he has a protected liberty interest in the
grievance procedures at the facility in which he was housed. See Henderson v.
-2-
Appellate Case: 21-7010 Document: 010110582433 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Fisher, 767 F. App’x 670, 675 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished disposition cited for
persuasive value).
Because Johnson has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, the district court’s judgment dismissing Johnson’s due process claim
centered on defendant Garrison’s handling of his PREA complaint is affirmed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-
Appellate Case: 21-7010 Document: 010110582433 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --