(PC) Tunstall v. Bodenhamer, et al., No. 2:2016cv02665 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/11/2017 RECOMMENDING that 16 Emergency Motion be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, Jr., 12 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-2665 JAM DB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS D. BODENHAMER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that his cell at California State Prison – 19 Sacramento was not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act or with section 504 20 of the Rehabilitation Act. Before the court is plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to be Placed into the 21 ‘Protective Custody’ of the Court.” (ECF No. 16.) 22 Plaintiff seeks placement in protective custody to avoid being “murdered” by prison staff 23 at California State Prison-Corcoran, where he is currently incarcerated. Plaintiff describes some 24 rude and harassing behavior by prison staff. Plaintiff also states that he was physically assaulted 25 twice previously at other prisons. None of plaintiff’s allegations show that he is in imminent 26 danger of harm that requires intervention by the court. 27 28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s Emergency Motion (ECF No. 16) be denied. 1 1 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 3 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 5 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 7 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 Dated: July 11, 2017 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/tuns2665.emerg mtn fr 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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.
