Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00354/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00354-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. Cosby
Defendant
Gregory Ell Shehee
Plaintiff
S. Valley
Defendant

Document Text:

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.

E. COSBY and S. VALLEY,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT 

ORDER DIRECTING ACCESS TO THE LAW 

LIBRARY

(Doc. Nos. 13–14)

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 motion for a court order regarding 

access to copy services be denied. Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff 

and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff timely filed 

Case 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB Document 16 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

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 recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis. The undersigned notes that plaintiff in his motion fails to explain his need for the relief 

requested in order to prosecute this action.

Accordingly, 

1. The May 27, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 14) are adopted; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing access to the law library to obtain copy 

services (Doc. No. 13) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00354-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 08/02/16 Page 2 of 2