Shehee v. Nguyen et al
Filing
92
ORDER adopting 86 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to deny Plaintiff's Motion for ADA 77 signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/5/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
NGUYEN, et al.,
15
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01154-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADA
(ECF No. 86)
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeds on Plaintiff’s third
amended complaint against Defendants Audrey king, April Leavens, Long Moua, and
Kim Nguyen for denying Plaintiff a cane and access to educational services in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. (ECF No. 34.) 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 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
for ADA.” (ECF No. 77.) The motion appears to be a letter directed to the Clerk of Court
stating that Plaintiff’s current jailers at Fresno County Jail -- a non-party -- are not
assisting him with his case and he needs such assistance because of his disability. (Id.
1
at 1.) Plaintiff then asks “can you help?” (Id.)
2
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this case interpreted this motion as one for
3
injunctive relief, seeking a Court Order to force Fresno County Jail authorities to assist
4
Plaintiff in pursuing his claim in this Court.
5
On
February
14,
2018,
the
Magistrate
Judge
issued
findings
and
6
recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff was directed to file
7
his objections within fourteen days. Plaintiff’s objections were filed on February 20, 2018.
8
(ECF No. 88.)
9
10
Plaintiff’s one-paged objections reiterates Plaintiff’s request in the initial motion.
Plaintiff sets forth no new arguments or facts.
11
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,
12
the Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s request. The Court finds the
13
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
14
Plaintiff has made no showing that he is entitled to injunctive relief at this time. The Court
15
will deny his request. If new circumstances arise in the future that warrant consideration,
16
Plaintiff may renew his request at that time.
17
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1. The findings and recommendations filed on February 14, 2018 (ECF No.
19
86) are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff’s “motion for ADA” (ECF No. 77) is DENIED.
20
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
March 5, 2018
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?