Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Brooks

United States District Court, D. Idaho

May 3, 2018

KENT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
GUARD BROOKS; GUARD NETTLETON; GUARD HANSEN; GUARD CULBERTSON; and GUARD JENSEN, Defendants.

          ORDER VACATING DKT. 35 AND AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          DAVID C. NYE U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         ORDER

         IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's Request for Clarification (Dkt. 42) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court misspoke when it stated that the Initial Review Order concluded that the Complaint did not state plausible retaliation claims. The Court has reviewed that Order and its previous Memorandum Decision and Order (Dkt. 35), and has determined that the Complaint does, indeed, state such claims. Therefore, the Court's April 5, 2018 Memorandum Decision and Order (Dkt. 35) is VACATED, and the Court hereby issues the following Amended Memorandum Decision and Order. To the extent the Request for Clarification seeks permission to file an interlocutory appeal or seeks any other relief, the Request is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Initial Review Order (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the Court has reviewed and reconsidered the Complaint and the Initial Review Order as set forth below. The Motion is denied in all other respects.
3. Plaintiff's Request to Withdraw Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 19) is GRANTED.
4. Plaintiff's Motion for an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT.
5. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Pleadings (Dkt. 22) is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 27) is DENIED.

         AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

         Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale previously entered an Initial Review Order, allowing Plaintiff to proceed on his claims that Defendants violated his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress, as well as his First Amendment right to be free from retaliation, by refusing to process Plaintiff's jail grievances because they contained disrespectful language. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff's claims arose when he was incarcerated at the Ada County Jail, and Defendants are employees of Ada County.

         Plaintiff has now filed several motions: (1) a Motion to Reconsider the Initial Review Order, in which he asks the Court to analyze Plaintiff's free speech claims against Defendants; (2) a Motion to Stay Pleadings; and (3) a Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. Dkts. 17, 22, 27.)[1]

         Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and that oral argument is unnecessary. See D. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1.

         1. Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.