Walker-Mahdi v. Dixon et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration re 8 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 1/10/12. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION BYRON ABDUL WALKER-MAHDI, ADC #149318 PLAINTIFF 1:11-cv-00115-BSM-JTK DOUG DIXON, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s denial of his Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 8). By Order dated December 20, 2011, this Court denied Plaintiff’s request to add as a defendant, Wendy Kelley, based on his failure to provide a proposed amended complaint, or to state his claim against Ms. Kelley (Doc. No. 6). In his present Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider that denial, and states that Defendant Kelley is liable because she failed to properly investigate the grievance appeals he submitted to her. However, “failure to properly investigate or respond to a prisoner’s grievances is not actionable under section 1983. Grievance procedures providing for an administrative remedy procedure do not create a liberty interest in access to that procedure.” Fowler v. Crawford, No. 074197-CV-C-SOW, 2009 WL 2982922 (W.D.MO 2009), citing Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED. DATED this 10th day of January, 2012. __________________________________ JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?