Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Tate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 18, 2009

KIRK DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MATTHEW TATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sidney R. Thomas, United States Circuit Judge Sitting by Designation

ORDER

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this court's prior order partially dismissing his complaint is DENIED. "The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property." Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). As Plaintiff has no Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in his prison classification, Myron v. Terhune, 476 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007), the state did not violate his procedural due process rights by altering his classification without 72 hours advance notice.

Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file the documents described in this court's prior order is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until September 4, 2009 to file the required documents. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff 7 additional USM-285 forms.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090818

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.