(PC) Petersen v. Fresno County Sheriff's Office et al, No. 1:2018cv00531 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS regarding denial of Motion for preliminary injunction 9 signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/5/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KYLE PETERSEN, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00531-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 10) Defendants. Plaintiff Kyle Petersen (“Plaintiff”) is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order allowing him access to the 21 legal research kiosk at the Fresno County Jail. (ECF No. 9.) On May 23, 2018, the assigned 22 Magistrate Judge construed the request as a motion for a preliminary injunction and issued 23 findings and recommendations recommending denial of the motion. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff 24 timely filed objections on June 4, 2018. (ECF No. 11.) 25 In his objections, Plaintiff argues that the Court should grant his request because he does 26 not have control over whether the Court has screened his complaint and found cognizable claims, 27 he requires access to the applicable case law and statutes to cite in his grievances regarding the 28 claims presented in this action, and the relief sought is narrowly drawn. In addition, Plaintiff 1 1 argues that the Court has jurisdiction over the Fresno County Jail, because he has named it as a 2 party to this action. (Id.) 3 Plaintiff’s objections are unpersuasive. As discussed in the findings and 4 recommendations, Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, and the Court has made no 5 determination that Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for relief. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed 6 to meet the threshold requirement of showing a likelihood of success on the merits. 7 Furthermore, the Court may not issue an order requiring the Fresno County Jail to take 8 any action. Although Plaintiff has named the Fresno County Jail as a defendant in his complaint, 9 no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant has made an appearance. Thus, the 10 11 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 12 de novo review of the case. None of Plaintiff’s objections provide a legal basis on which to 13 question the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the 14 entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are 15 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 16 17 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 23, 2018, (ECF No. 10), are adopted in full; 19 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, (ECF No. 9), is denied; and 20 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings 21 consistent with this order. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ June 5, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.