Gregory E. Shehee (Civil Detainee) v. Trumbly et al

Filing 77

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Plaintiff's Motions for Injunctive Relief 58 , 59 , 60 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/14/17: This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
REDDING and BLANCO,

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

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 58, 59, 60)

16
17
18
19

At the time this action was filed, plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee was a civil detainee

20

proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained

21

pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not

22

prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d

23

1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).

24

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 1, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed

26

findings and recommendations, recommending that the court deny plaintiff’s motions for access

27

to copy services. (Doc. No. 60.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and

28

contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed
1

1
2

objections on December 13, 2016. (Doc. No. 61.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

3

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

4

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by

5

proper analysis.

6

Based on the foregoing,

7

1. The December 1, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 60) are adopted in

8
9
10

full;
2. Plaintiff’s motions for access to copy services (Doc. Nos. 58, 59) are denied; and
3. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

11
12
13

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 14, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2