Grady v. Daniels et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 64

ORDER: Upon consideration of the plaintiff's motion for clarification (doc. no. 57 ) of the court's opinion and judgment (doc. nos. 44 & 45 ), it is ORDERED that the motion is granted. The court has ruled in favor of the defendants a nd against the plaintiff on his claim about the denial of books; that claim will not go to trial. However, the court ruled that that the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Leeposey Daniels can go to trial. Therefore, there will be a trial on the plaintiff's claim that, in retaliation for plaintiff's complaints about the denial of books, Warden Daniels transferred him to another prison where he could not continue with an educational program. In other words, the only claim that remains is plaintiff's retaliatory transfer claim. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/2/2017. (kh, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
LARRY JEROME GRADY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
LEEPOSEY DANIELS, Warden,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv991-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
Upon consideration of the plaintiff’s motion for
clarification (doc. no. 57) of the court’s opinion and
judgment (doc. nos. 44 & 45), it is ORDERED that the
motion is granted.
The court has ruled in favor of the defendants and
against the plaintiff on his claim about the denial of
books; that claim will not go to trial.

However, the

court ruled that that the plaintiff’s First Amendment
retaliation

claim

against

defendant

Leeposey

Daniels

can go to trial.

Therefore, there will be a trial on

the

claim

plaintiff’s

that,

in

retaliation

for

plaintiff’s

complaints

about

the

denial

of

books,

Warden Daniels transferred him to another prison where
he could not continue with an educational program.

In

other words, the only claim that remains is plaintiff’s
retaliatory transfer claim.
DONE, this the 2nd day of October, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE