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

Filing 89

ORDER ADOPTING 66 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 65 Plaintiff's Motion for Access to Photocopy Services signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/27/2017. (Jessen, A)

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

v.

14

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

REDDING, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION FOR ACCESS TO PHOTOCOPY
SERVICES
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 65, 66)

16

At the time this action was filed, plaintiff was a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil

17
18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare

19

and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning

20

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.

21
22

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 24, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued

23

findings and recommendations recommending that the court deny plaintiff’s motion for access to

24

copy services. (Doc. No. 66.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and

25

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

26

objections on February 28, 2017. (Doc. No. 79.)

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has

2

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

3

undersigned concludes the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and by

4

proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not persuade the court otherwise. The mere fact that

5

plaintiff keeps “getting copies not quit[e] right” because he is not allowed to use a photocopier

6

does not warrant a preliminary injunction on the basis of plaintiff’s claim that he is being denied

7

access to the courts.

8

Based on the foregoing,

9

1. The January 24, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 66) are adopted in full;

10
11
12
13

and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for access to photocopy services (Doc. No. 65) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 27, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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