Fisher v. Director of CDC, et. al.

Filing 63

ORDER denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/12/11: The order of the magistrate judge filed November 18, 2011, is affirmed. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Sean C, Fisher,

12
13
14

No. 2:05-cv-02217-MCE-CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

N. Grannis, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

----oo0oo----

17
18

On December 6, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for

19

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order filed November

20

18, 2011.

21

responded to an earlier decision of the United States Court of

22

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed in the part,

23

vacated in part, and remanded for further consideration, this

24

Court’s Order dismissing this action.

25

Memorandum Disposition, the Ninth Circuit specifically directed

26

the court to consider, on remand, “Fisher’s claims that he was

27

denied access to the grievance system and was retaliated against

28

for exercising his First Amendment rights.”

See Dkt. Nos. 61 and 62.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s Order

See Dkt. No. 16.

In its

1
2

See Dkt. No. 48 at 2-3.
The Magistrate Judge’s November 18, 2011, Order determined

3

that Plaintiff had adequately stated a claim for retaliation

4

against two of the correctional officers, defendants Briddle and

5

Davey, but had not adequately stated facts against the other

6

defendants named in the amended complaint.

7

addition, the Magistrate Judge held that Plaintiff had not

8

“stated a claim that he was denied access to the prison grievance

9

process and, by extension, the courts.”

Id.

Dkt. No 61 at 3.

In

The Magistrate

10

Judge noted that even if the denial of Plaintiff’s grievances

11

were improper, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that he was

12

denied access to the courts.

13

determined, inter alia, that this action could proceed against

14

defendants Briddle and Davey.

15

Id.

The Magistrate Judge therefore

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s

16

orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to

17

law.”

18

does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly

19

erroneous or contrary to law.

20

Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that it

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration,

21

the order of the magistrate judge filed

22

affirmed.

23

November 18, 2011, is

Dated: December 12, 2011

24
25
26

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2