Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00706/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00706-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

REDDING and BLANCO,

Defendants.

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

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF

(Doc. Nos. 58, 59, 60)

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

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

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

prisoners within the meaning 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. 

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

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

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

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

Case 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB Document 77 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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 

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

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

proper analysis.

Based on the foregoing, 

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

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 

consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB Document 77 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 2