Armstead v. Virga et al
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/11/12 ORDERING that upon reconsideration, the Order of the Magistrate Judge filed 7/19/12 is AFFIRMED; Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and objections to the 7/3/12 Findings and Recommendations are due within thirty days of the date of this order. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TIM V. VIRGA, et al.,
No. 2:11-cv-1054 JAM KJN P
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
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.
DATED: September 11, 2012
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?