The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold Baker United States District Judge
This cause is before the court for consideration of the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the May 15, 2006 Merit Review Order. [d/e 53].
The plaintiff brought his lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against 24 defendants at the Pontiac Correctional Center. It was difficult for the court to discern the plaintiff's intended claims. However, the court found that the plaintiff had adequately alleged that:
a) the defendants violated the plaintiff's First Amendment rights when they repeatedly interfering with his grievances by refusing to make copies, refusing to respond, failing to forward them on or destroying them in retaliation for the plaintiff's previous grievances or lawsuits;
b) the defendants violated the plaintiff's right to meaningful access to the courts under the First Amendment when the interfered with the plaintiff's grievances;
c) the defendants violated the plaintiff's First Amendment rights when they repeatedly interfered with his outgoing mail in retaliation for previous lawsuits and grievances; and.
d) the defendants violated the plaintiff's First and Fourth Amendment rights based on repeated delays and/or tampering and /or censoring of his outgoing mail.
The claims were against the defendants in their official and individual capacities. The court further stated in the Merit Review Order that it was dismissing any other intended claims. The only specific identified claims dismissed were any attempt to state a due process violation based on the grievance system and any equal protection claim. See May 15, 2006 Court Order.
The plaintiff has now filed a motion asking for the court to reinstate his dismissed claims. However, it appears the plaintiff believes the court dismissed claims that it did not. For instance, the plaintiff asks the court to find that he did state a claim against the law library for continued interference with his grievances. The court did not dismiss this claim. However, for clarification, the plaintiff did not name the "law library" as a defendant, nor would this be a proper defendant. The plaintiff properly named individual defendants.
The plaintiff does ask the court to reinstate claims concerning the grievance procedure and equal protection, but still has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff's motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the May 15, 2006 Merit Review Order is denied. [d/e 53].
Enter this 21st day of June, 2006.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...