IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 4, 2012
DANNY MCDOWELL, PLAINTIFF,
J.L. BISHOP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
On April 11, 2011, defendant Ginder was granted summary judgment as to plaintiff's claim against him arising under the First Amendment. In July of this year, the Ninth Circuit found that pro se prisoner plaintiffs such as the plaintiff must receive certain information about opposing motions for summary judgment when a motion for summary judgment is filed. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff was provided with that notice on October 4, 2012 and informed that he could submit any evidence not previously submitted which is relevant in determining whether defendant Ginder should be granted summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's First Amendment claim. On November 26, 2012, plaintiff submitted further evidence and further argument.
The court has reviewed all of the material filed by plaintiff on November 26, 2012. Plaintiff still fails to point to anything suggesting defendant Ginder's use of physical force against plaintiff on March 25, 2005 was motivated in any way by the fact that plaintiff had either filed prisoner grievances in the past, that plaintiff had threatened to file grievances or some other exercise of plaintiff's First Amendment rights. See February 9, 2011 Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, there is no cause to revisit the decision to grant defendant Ginder summary judgment as to plaintiff's First Amendment claim.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court elects not to revisit the court's April 11, 2012 decision to grant defendant Ginder summary judgment as to plaintiff's First Amendment claim.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.