(PC) Hilson v. Arnett et al, No. 1:2015cv01240 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 52 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Law Library Access signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/28/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RASHEED HILSON, SR. 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 No. 1:15-cv-01240-DAD-MJS ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LAW LIBRARY ACCESS JESSE ARNETT, (Doc. Nos. 51, 52.) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of this court. 20 On September 11, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for prison law library access, construed 22 as a motion for injunctive relief, be denied. (Doc. No. 52.) In the findings and recommendations 23 the magistrate judge concluded that the court lacks personal jurisdiction to issue such an 24 injunction. However, the magistrate judge also issued an order requesting assistance from the 25 prison’s litigation coordinator with respect to the issue of plaintiff’s access to the law library. The 26 findings and recommendation were served on all parties with notice that any objections thereto 27 were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections to the findings and recommendations have 28 been filed. 1 1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of 2 this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and 3 recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 For these reasons: 5 1. 6 7 adopted in full; and 2. 8 9 10 The findings and recommendations filed on September 11, 2017 (Doc. No. 52) are Plaintiff’s motion for law library access (Doc. No. 51), construed by the court as a motion for injunctive relief, is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 28, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.