Shehee v. Redding

Full title: GREGORY ELL SHEHEE, Plaintiff, v. REDDING and BLANCO, Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 2, 2016

No. 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016)

Opinion

No. 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB

08-02-2016

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE, Plaintiff, v. REDDING and BLANCO, Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER DIRECTING ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY

(Doc. Nos. 45-46)

At the time this action was filed, plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee was a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).

The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 27, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's request for a court order directing that he receive access to the jail law library and copy services be denied. Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff timely filed objections on June 14, 2016.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the magistrate judge's recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In particular, the undersigned notes that an order directing service of plaintiff's complaint was issued and an answer to the complaint has just now been filed and served. Plaintiff has made no showing that the requested relief is necessary at this time in order for him to prosecute this action.

Accordingly,

1. The May 27, 2016 recommendation (Doc. No. 46) is adopted; and

2. Plaintiff's motion for a court order directing access to the law library (Doc. No. 45) is denied at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 2 , 2016

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE