From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Tate

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 18, 2009
2:08-cv-02242-SRT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009)

Opinion

2:08-cv-02242-SRT (PC).

August 18, 2009


ORDER


Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this court's prior order partially dismissing his complaint is DENIED. "The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property." Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). As Plaintiff has no Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in his prison classification, Myron v. Terhune, 476 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007), the state did not violate his procedural due process rights by altering his classification without 72 hours advance notice.

Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file the documents described in this court's prior order is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until September 4, 2009 to file the required documents. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff 7 additional USM-285 forms.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Williams v. Tate

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 18, 2009
2:08-cv-02242-SRT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009)
Case details for

Williams v. Tate

Case Details

Full title:Kirk Douglas Williams, Plaintiff, v. Matthew Tate, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 18, 2009

Citations

2:08-cv-02242-SRT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009)