Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00727/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00727-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT TUNSTALL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0727 LKK EFB P

vs.

M. VEAL, Warden, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds without counsel on interlocutory appeal of this court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s August 29, 2007, findings and recommendations to deny

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking medical treatment. The Ninth Circuit has

referred the matter back to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether the

appeal has been taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

An appeal not taken in good faith is one that is frivolous, meaning the result is obvious or

the arguments are wholly without merit. See Cannon v. Hawaii Corp. (In re Hawaii Corp.), 796

F.2d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir.1986) (quoting Libby, McNeill and Libby v. City National Bank, 592 

F.2d 504, 515 (9th Cir.1978); Jaeger v. Canadian Bank, 327 F.2d 743, 746 (9th Cir.1964). 

////

Case 2:06-cv-00727-LKK -EFB Document 57 Filed 12/07/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

The Ninth Circuit will review this case de novo. Llamas v. Butte Cmty. Coll. Dist., 238

F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2001).

By his motion, plaintiff stated that he was in administrative segregation and sought an

order directing defendants to (1) provide him with adequate and effective access to his legal

materials and any other materials necessary to prosecute this case; (2) explain in detail why he

has been placed in administrative segregation; (3) provide plaintiff with outside medical

treatment, including a comprehensive medical evaluation and to administer such treatment and

medications as are recommended, without delay.

The magistrate judge found that plaintiff had failed to explain his “final decision” not to

take medication prescribed to him or what alternative treatment he feels is warranted for his

condition; he failed to allege that the treatment he is refusing is inadequate; and he only alleges

that the side effects of his prescribed medications are undesirable. The magistrate judge further

found that plaintiff had not alleged any facts showing that there is a likelihood he will succeed on

the merits of his case and that he requires injunctive relief to avoid irreparable harm.

In his objections to the findings and recommendations, plaintiff stated that he is now

housed in the Department of Mental Health. Plaintiff did not show that the magistrate judge

overlooked any facts that call the findings into question, and he cannot adduce new evidence on

appeal. Nor did plaintiff demonstrate that there was any legal error in the findings and

recommendations. Therefore, the outcome of the appeal most likely is a foregone conclusion.

For these reasons, the court finds that plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith.

So ordered.

Dated: December 7, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00727-LKK -EFB Document 57 Filed 12/07/07 Page 2 of 2