Ghaly

(PC) Tunstall v. Ghaly

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 18, 20222:21-cv-01578California1,925 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, Jr., No. 2:21-cv-1578 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

MARK GHALY, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants have failed to accommodate his disability, failed to advise him of the right to remain silent during prisoner disciplinary proceedings, and have not investigated his allegations of abuse. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8) and his request for additional time to file an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application (ECF No. 6). For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny the motion for an extension of time, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and recommend that plaintiff be directed to pay the filing fee in full or face dismissal of this action. REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME By order…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.