Sharp v. Mims

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Denial of Motion for Court Order re 8 Motion, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/28/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY SHARP,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MARGARET MIMS,

15

Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00534-AWI-BAM PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL
OF MOTION FOR COURT ORDER
(ECF Nos. 8, 9)

Plaintiff Anthony Sharp (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail, is proceeding pro se

18

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his

19

complaint on April 15, 2013. Thereafter, on May 1, 2013, Plaintiff a motion requesting a court order

20

for law library access. In relevant part, Plaintiff sought an order directing Fresno County Jail officials

21

to allow him access to legal books and a copier if needed to prosecute this civil action. (ECF No. 8.)

22

On May 10, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff’s

23

motion for a court order directing access to the law library be denied. (ECF No. 9.) The findings and

24

recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

25

within thirty days. On May 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

26

(ECF No. 14.)

27
28

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that he should have access to the law library and law books
regardless of whether he is proceeding in a civil or a criminal action. Plaintiff complains that he
1

1

cannot adequately prosecute this action without such access. As noted by the Magistrate Judge,

2

Plaintiff’s complaint has not been screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and there are no

3

pending deadlines that require access to the law library. Further, Plaintiff’s objections do not address

4

the underlying determination by the Magistrate Judge that the issue Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his

5

motion bears no relation to his claims of deliberate indifference and that this action provides no basis

6

upon which to award him injunctive relief. (ECF No. 9, p. 2.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

7
8

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections,

9

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

10

analysis.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 10, 2013 are adopted in full; and

13

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for court order directing access to the law library is DENIED.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: May 28, 2013

18
19

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

0m8i788

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2