(PC) Armstead v. Virga et al, No. 2:2011cv01054 - Document 65 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/29/2012 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51 are ADOPTED in FULL; Defendant's 29 motion to dismiss is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; plaintiff is GRANTED 14 days to file an amended complaint in accordance with the 7/3/2012 F & R's.(Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Armstead v. Virga et al Doc. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES ARMSTEAD, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. 2: 11-cv-1054 JAM KJN P vs. TIM V. VIRGA, et al., Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On July 3, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 22 On July 19, 2012, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff thirty days to file 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. The magistrate judge also denied plaintiff’s 24 motion for law library access. On August 3, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of 25 the July 19, 2012 order denying his motion for law library access. On September 11, 2012, the 26 undersigned denied the motion for reconsideration and granted plaintiff thirty days to file his 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 objections. Because plaintiff raised issues regarding law library access not previously presented 2 to the magistrate judge, the undersigned ordered that plaintiff could file a renewed motion for 3 law library access. 4 On October 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his 5 renewed motion for law library access. On October 19, 2012, the magistrate judge granted 6 plaintiff fourteen days to file his renewed motion. Fourteen days passed and plaintiff did not file 7 a renewed motion for law library access. Plaintiff also failed to file objections to the July 3, 2012 8 findings and recommendations. However, plaintiff did file objections to the October 18, 2012 9 findings and recommendations recommending that his October 11, 2012 motion for a temporary 10 11 restraining order be denied. Despite apparent law library access, as demonstrated by plaintiff’s recent filings, 12 plaintiff has failed to file objections to the July 3, 2012 findings and recommendations. 13 Defendants have also not filed objections to the July 3, 2012 findings and recommendations. 14 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 15 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 16 ORDERED that: 17 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 3, 2012 are adopted in full; 18 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is granted as to the following 19 claims: 1) adequate law library access; 2) violation of right to due process in connection with the 20 processing of administrative appeals; 3) claims concerning defendants Daly and Cannedy; 21 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is denied as to the following 22 claims: 1) racially-based lockdown in violation of the Equal Protection Clause; 2) denial of 23 access to telephone; 3) denial of access to cleaning supplies; and 4) claims against defendants 24 Virga and Mini; 25 26 4. Plaintiff is granted fourteen days to file an amended complaint in accordance with the July 3, 2012 findings and recommendations; if plaintiff does not file an amended 2 1 complaint, this action will proceed on the following claims: 1) racially-based lockdowns in 2 violation of the Equal Protection Clause; 2) denial of access to telephone; 3) denial of access to 3 cleaning supplies; and 4) claims against defendants Virga and Mini. 4 DATED: November 29, 2012 5 6 /s/ John A. Mendez 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
