McDaniels v. Stewart et al

Filing 177

ORDER denying 175 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Peter McDaniels, Prisoner ID: 995036)(TG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 4 5 6 PETER J. MCDANIELS, 7 Plaintiff, 8 9 v. BELINDA STEWART, et al., 10 CASE NO. C15-5943BHS-DWC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants. 11 12 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Peter McDaniels’s (“McDaniels”) 13 motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 175. 14 On March 7, 2011, the Court adopted the Honorable David W. Christel’s Report 15 and Recommendation (“R&R”) and denied McDaniels’s renewed motion for a 16 preliminary injunction. Dkt. 174. On March 9, 2017, McDaniels moved for 17 reconsideration. Dkt. 175. McDaniels asserts that his religious rights are being violated 18 by Defendants because they refuse to tailor a therapeutic diet program so that it satisfies 19 his religious dietary restrictions, despite the availability of a separate nontherapeutic 20 Halal diet. The Court adopted the R&R over McDaniels’s objections, because McDaniels 21 has failed to show a likelihood of irreparable harm. 22 ORDER - 1 1 In his motion for reconsideration, McDaniels has failed to present legal authority 2 that the Court did not already consider when adopting the R&R. The Court already 3 understands that McDaniels is arguing that he has a constitutional right to a Halal version 4 of the “metabolic diet,” not a “mainline diet.” McDaniels has also reemphasized in his 5 motion that (1) he no longer has funds to purchase supplemental food, 1 (2) he has already 6 consumed all the food that was sent to him by his brother, and (3) he is not receiving 7 additional food from fellow inmates. By arguing these points in his motion for 8 reconsideration, McDaniels has indicated that there are less alternative options for 9 supplemental food than contemplated in the R&R or the Court’s previous order. But none 10 of McDaniels’s arguments or factual assertions weaken the underlying premise of the 11 R&R adopted by the Court. See Dkt. 163 at 7. (“Although the meat on the metabolic diet 12 is not Halal, Plaintiff has access to Halal meat . . . [and] any of the diets offered to 13 Plaintiff provide sufficient calories and satisfy nutritional requirements.”). Accordingly, 14 Plaintiff has failed to show that the alleged wrongs of Defendants are causing him 15 irreparable harm. 16 McDaniels has therefore failed to show manifest error in the Court’s prior order, 17 see Local Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1), and the Court DENIES his motion for 18 reconsideration. 19 20 21 1 Plaintiff’s statements in his motion suggests that the $6,000 in his “Hajj fund” is not 22 money that is available to him for use at the commissary. See Dkt. 175 at 8–9; Dkt. 141 at 3–4. ORDER - 2 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated this 20th day of March, 2017. A 3 4 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 3

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?