Shehee v. Nguyen et al

Filing 86

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 77 Plaintiff's Motion for ADA be DENIED re 34 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/13/2018. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 Case No.: 1:14-cv-01154-LJO-MJS (PC) GREGORY ELL SHEHEE, 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADA NGUYEN, et al., 17 (ECF No. 77) Defendants. FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 18 19 Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 20 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeds on Plaintiff’s third 21 amended complaint against Defendants Audrey king, April Leavens, Long Moua, and 22 Kim Nguyen for denying Plaintiff a cane and access to educational services in violation 23 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Eighth Amendment of the United 24 States Constitution. (ECF No. 34.) 25 26 On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion captioned as “requesting ADA from the Clerk of Court ADA American with Disabilities Act Title II.” It was docketed as “Motion 27 for ADA.” (ECF No. 77.) The motion appears to be a letter directed to the Clerk of Court 28 1 1 stating that Plaintiff’s current jailers at Fresno County Jail -- a non-party -- are not 2 assisting him with his case and he needs such assistance because of his disability. (Id. 3 at 1.) Plaintiff then asks “can you help?” (Id.) 4 The Court interprets this motion as one for injunctive relief, seeking a Court Order 5 to force Fresno County Jail authorities to assist Plaintiff in pursuing his claim in this 6 Court. 7 As with Plaintiff’s numerous other filings concerning his current confinement at 8 Fresno County Jail (ECF Nos. 62; 76; 79), the Court does not have personal jurisdiction 9 over the individuals who allegedly decline to assist in the prosecution of this case. 10 These individuals are not parties to this action and the relief sought differs from that 11 requested in the complaint here. (See ECF Nos. 68; 80.) The pendency of this action 12 does not give the Court jurisdiction over state officials in general or over the relief 13 requested in Plaintiff's motion that is not the subject of the operative complaint. 14 Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United 15 States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 16 in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. 17 Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion must 18 be denied because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the individuals responsible 19 for not helping him at Fresno County Jail. 20 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for ADA (ECF No. 77) be DENIED. 22 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States 23 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and 25 Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document 26 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 27 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 28 2 1 in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 13, 2018 /s/ 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Michael J. Seng 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?