From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watson v. Norris

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Helena Division
Dec 5, 2007
2:07CV00102 SWW/HDY (E.D. Ark. Dec. 5, 2007)

Summary

finding that prisoner's allegations, arising from placement in segregated housing, did not plausibly suggest atypical and significant hardship for purposes of due process claim, and but that his allegations-arising from same placement in segregated housing- did plausibly suggest that defendants took adverse action against him because he engaged in protected activity for purposes of retaliation claim

Summary of this case from Groves v. State

Opinion

2:07CV00102 SWW/HDY.

December 5, 2007


ORDER


The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young and the objections and "statement of necessity" filed by plaintiff. After carefully considering the objections and statement, and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (docket entry #15) is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART;

2) Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's allegations of violations of due process is GRANTED;

3) Plaintiff will be allowed to proceed with his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 retaliation claims against the Defendants; and

4) Plaintiff shall be appointed counsel and this matter will be set for trial by separate order.


Summaries of

Watson v. Norris

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Helena Division
Dec 5, 2007
2:07CV00102 SWW/HDY (E.D. Ark. Dec. 5, 2007)

finding that prisoner's allegations, arising from placement in segregated housing, did not plausibly suggest atypical and significant hardship for purposes of due process claim, and but that his allegations-arising from same placement in segregated housing- did plausibly suggest that defendants took adverse action against him because he engaged in protected activity for purposes of retaliation claim

Summary of this case from Groves v. State
Case details for

Watson v. Norris

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL WATSON ADC # 99967 PLAINTIFF v. LARRY NORRIS, Director, Arkansas…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Helena Division

Date published: Dec 5, 2007

Citations

2:07CV00102 SWW/HDY (E.D. Ark. Dec. 5, 2007)

Citing Cases

Groves v. State

Rather, in every on-point case I have found (in my non-exhaustive search), courts have considered allegations…

Clardy v. Mullens

Additionally, plaintiff's contention that defendants Mullins and Merry retaliated against him for exercising…