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.

James Armstead v. Tim v. Virga

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 11, 2012

JAMES ARMSTEAD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TIM V. VIRGA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge

ORDER

On August 3, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed July 19, 2012 denying plaintiff's motions for protective orders requesting additional law library access. In these motions, plaintiff complained that the books in the law library had been replaced with computers that were difficult to use. Plaintiff also complained that the law library no longer loaned out books. Plaintiff also complained that the law library hours had been cut. Plaintiff also complained about the number of copies he was permitted to make. Plaintiff also alleged that he had been denied law library access in retaliation for pursuing the instant action.

In the pending motion for reconsideration, plaintiff challenges the magistrate judge's order rejecting plaintiff's retaliation claim as vague and unsupported. In the motion for reconsideration, other than conclusory allegations, plaintiff pleads no specific facts suggesting that prison officials denied him law library access in retaliation for pursuing this action. Accordingly, the order by the magistrate judge rejecting plaintiff's retaliation claim is upheld. See E.D. Local Rule 303(f) (a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law.")

In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff also alleges that the law librarian improperly refused his request for law library access on July 25, 2012. Plaintiff also alleges that the law librarian improperly had plaintiff removed from the front gate when he was waiting for law library access on unspecified occasions. Plaintiff's motions for protective orders did not contain these allegations regarding denial of law library access. The undersigned will not consider these new allegations because they were not presented to the magistrate judge.

Plaintiff may file a renewed motion requesting law library access. The renewed motion must include the dates on which plaintiff was allegedly denied law library access and identify the prison officials involved.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed July 19, 2012 is affirmed;

2. Plaintiff's amended complaint and objections to the July 3, 2012 findings and recommendations are due within thirty days of the date of this order.

20120911

© 1992-2012 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.