Adam Raney v. Brian Kolb

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 18, 2026*
Decided August 19, 2026
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-2753
ADAM RANEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRIAN KOLB, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 25-CV-603
Nancy Joseph,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Adam Raney, a Wisconsin prisoner, challenges the dismissal of his complaint
alleging that prison employees violated his constitutional rights when they denied his
grievance. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court concluded that the complaint failed to
state a claim. We affirm.
* The appellees were not served with process in the district court and are not
participating in this appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument
because the brief and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral
argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED. R. APP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-2753 Page 2
We accept as true the facts alleged in Raney’s complaint—and its attachments—
and view them in the light most favorable to him. See Milbeck v. George, 171 F.4th 930,
934 (7th Cir. 2026) (citing F ED. R. C IV. P. 10(c)). On June 14, 2024, Raney, who is
incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional Institution, submitted a grievance over what
he regarded as the mishandling of a prior grievance. Wisconsin’s Inmate Complaint
Review System requires that inmates’ grievances satisfy certain criteria, two of which
are relevant here: a grievance must (1) be filed within 14 days of the incident giving rise
to the grievance and (2) include only one clearly identified issue. See WIS . A DMIN . C ODE
DEP ’ T OF C ORRS . § 310.07(2), (5). If a grievance does not meet these criteria, a complaint
examiner may return it to the prisoner, permit him one opportunity to correct and
resubmit it, and “grant 10 days for receipt of the corrected [grievance].” Id. § 310.10(5).
A complaint examiner reviewed Raney’s grievance and returned it to him on
June 14 because it included more than one issue. The examiner’s response stated that
Raney could correct the errors in his grievance, adding that his “return is still being
held to the 14 day time limit.”
On June 18, Raney resubmitted his grievance, explaining that the examiner’s 14-
day deadline violates § 310.10(5), which explicitly allows inmates 10 days to correct and
resubmit a rejected grievance. The examiner construed Raney’s grievance as an
unauthorized appeal of her response letter and dismissed the grievance as frivolous. See
id. § 310.10(6)(c).
Raney appealed to the warden, who also dismissed the grievance. Raney then
appealed to the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, who dismissed
the appeal based on the discretion afforded through the grievance review process.
Raney sued the warden, various complaint examiners, and Wisconsin state
officials for violating his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and his
right to engage in speech protected by the First Amendment. He alleged that Waupun’s
practice of requiring prisoners to resubmit corrected grievances within the 14-day time
limit violates § 310.10(5) and that complaint examiners routinely deny as untimely
corrected grievances that are not resubmitted within that time limit. He also alleged that
the defendants conspired against him by using unwritten rules to dismiss his
grievances about prison conditions.
The district court screened Raney’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The court explained that no independent
constitutional claim arises under § 1983 because prison grievance procedures are not

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-2753 Page 3
mandated by the First Amendment and do not create an interest protected by the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As for Raney’s objection regarding the
10-day window set forth in § 310.10(5), the court stated that it had accounted for that
extension in another of Raney’s cases, Raney v. Goehl, No. 24-cv-487 (E.D. Wis. May 30,
2025), in which it had denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
exhaustion grounds.
On appeal, Raney maintains that the defendants’ actions violated his rights to
free speech under the First Amendment and due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment. But as the magistrate judge rightly explained, prison grievance
procedures are not required by the First Amendment and do not implicate the Due
Process Clause. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011).
Raney also insists that the defendants conspired against him. But because Raney
has failed to plead a constitutional violation, we need not reach his claim regarding the
existence of a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. See Archer v. Chisholm,
870 F.3d 603, 620 (7th Cir. 2017).
We have considered Raney’s other arguments, and they do not have merit.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --