From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petersen v. Fresno Cnty. Sheriff's Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 5, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-00531-LJO-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 1:18-cv-00531-LJO-BAM (PC)

06-05-2018

KYLE PETERSEN, Plaintiff, v. FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 10)

Plaintiff Kyle Petersen ("Plaintiff") is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order allowing him access to the legal research kiosk at the Fresno County Jail. (ECF No. 9.) On May 23, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge construed the request as a motion for a preliminary injunction and issued findings and recommendations recommending denial of the motion. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on June 4, 2018. (ECF No. 11.)

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that the Court should grant his request because he does not have control over whether the Court has screened his complaint and found cognizable claims, he requires access to the applicable case law and statutes to cite in his grievances regarding the claims presented in this action, and the relief sought is narrowly drawn. In addition, Plaintiff argues that the Court has jurisdiction over the Fresno County Jail, because he has named it as a party to this action. (Id.)

Plaintiff's objections are unpersuasive. As discussed in the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff's complaint has not yet been screened, and the Court has made no determination that Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for relief. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to meet the threshold requirement of showing a likelihood of success on the merits.

Furthermore, the Court may not issue an order requiring the Fresno County Jail to take any action. Although Plaintiff has named the Fresno County Jail as a defendant in his complaint, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant has made an appearance. Thus, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Fresno County Jail.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. None of Plaintiff's objections provide a legal basis on which to question the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 23, 2018, (ECF No. 10), are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, (ECF No. 9), is denied; and

3. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5 , 2018

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Petersen v. Fresno Cnty. Sheriff's Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 5, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-00531-LJO-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2018)
Case details for

Petersen v. Fresno Cnty. Sheriff's Office

Case Details

Full title:KYLE PETERSEN, Plaintiff, v. FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 5, 2018

Citations

Case No. 1:18-cv-00531-LJO-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2018)