Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00280/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00280-23/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-05-0280 LKK CMK P 

vs.

J. YENTES, et al., Order That Appeal Is Not 

Defendants. Taken In Good Faith

 /

Plaintiff brought this civil rights suit against defendants alleging violation of the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff's claim stem from an incident in October 2003,

when plaintiff visited his prison medical clinic and reported that he was having a seizure. After

examination, defendants concluded that plaintiff was not about to have a seizure--there was no

objective medical evidence indicating seizure activity. Plaintiff returned to his room, where he

reportedly suffered a seizure. Defendants were called to assist plaintiff; they had to stop assisting

another inmate to come see about plaintiff. Once defendants arrived in plaintiff's room, they

found no evidence that plaintiff has suffered a seizure. Defendants wrote plaintiff up and he was

assessed an administrative rules violation. 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00280-LKK -CMK Document 91 Filed 05/16/07 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

 On September 28, 2007, the district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to

grant summary judgment on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, but declined to adopt the

recommendation granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process

Claims. Neither plaintiff nor defendants appealed the September 28, 2007 judgment order. 

On February 26, 2007, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

recommending that summary judgment be granted on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Due

Process. The magistrate judge based his recommendation on the fact that plaintiff was assessed

an administrative rules violation as a result defendants believing that he falsely reported having a

seizure. Administrative rule violations do not affect good time credits and are not considered in

parole hearings; therefore, prisoners are not entitled to all the due process rights set forth in

Wolff v. McConnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) because these due process rights apply only to

prisoners accused of serious rules violations. On March 30, 2007, the district judge adopted the

recommendation that summary judgement be granted on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment

Claim. 

On March 17, 2007, plaintiff appealed the March 30, 2007 order adopting the

findings and recommendations and the judgement. The court concludes that this appeal is not

taken in good faith because the undisputed facts demonstrate that plaintiff was not entitled to the

due process rights set forth in Wolff. Plaintiff has made no showing that his due process rights

were violated. 

Therefore, the court finds that this appeal is not taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 16, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00280-LKK -CMK Document 91 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 2