Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00706/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00706-14/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 MOTION FOR COURT 

ORDER DIRECTING ACCESS TO THE LAW 

LIBRARY

(Doc. Nos. 45–46)

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 May 27, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed 

findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s request for a court order directing 

that he receive access to the jail law library and copy services be denied. Those findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed 

Case 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB Document 49 Filed 08/02/16 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

within thirty days. Plaintiff timely filed objections on June 14, 2016. 

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 magistrate judge’s recommendation to be supported by the record 

and by proper analysis. In particular, the undersigned notes that an order directing service of 

plaintiff’s complaint was issued and an answer to the complaint has just now been filed and 

served. Plaintiff has made no showing that the requested relief is necessary at this time in order 

for him to prosecute this action.

Accordingly, 

1. The May 27, 2016 recommendation (Doc. No. 46) is adopted; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing access to the law library (Doc. No. 45) is 

denied at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB Document 49 Filed 08/02/16 Page 2 of 2