Ghaly

(PC) Tunstall v. Ghaly

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 25, 20222:21-cv-01578California415 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 JAM DB P Plaintiff, v. 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. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed. By order dated March 16, 2022, the district court determined that plaintiff accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prior to filing this action. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff was directed to pay the filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. (Id.) On April 26, 2022, plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee within twenty days or face dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 25 …

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.