Vunetich v. Parke

872 F.2d 1030, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 5123, 1989 WL 37361
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedApril 17, 1989
Docket88-6220
StatusUnpublished

This text of 872 F.2d 1030 (Vunetich v. Parke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vunetich v. Parke, 872 F.2d 1030, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 5123, 1989 WL 37361 (6th Cir. 1989).

Opinion

872 F.2d 1030

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Gary Lee VUNETICH, also known as Jockey, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Al C. PARKE; Doyle Shackelford; Tom Campbell; George
Million; Larry Chandler; Allie Sharp, Defendants-Appellees,
Wm. Beaty; Terry Shelley; Chandra Doyle; Robert Newton;
Jack Simpson; Edward G. Houchin; Albert Johnson;
Frank "Pig" Martin; Billy Couch; Jane
Doe, Defendants.

No. 88-6220.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 17, 1989.

Before RYAN and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and JEROME TURNER, District Judge.*

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the briefs and record, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Plaintiff brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Plaintiff's claim, after he voluntarily dismissed all but one allegation, was that the named prison officials denied his right to access to the courts. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment for defendants and the instant appeal followed. The parties have briefed the issues, plaintiff proceeding pro se.

Upon consideration, we find ample support for the decision on review. Plaintiff Vunetich was accorded several hours (nine) each week in the prison law library as well as the services of trained inmate legal advisors to assist him in pursuing his various legal actions. This accommodation clearly passes constitutional muster on the facts before us. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). Plaintiff's core contention, that he is entitled to additional law library privileges with each new lawsuit he initiates, is without support in law.

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Jerome Turner, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bounds v. Smith
430 U.S. 817 (Supreme Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
872 F.2d 1030, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 5123, 1989 WL 37361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vunetich-v-parke-ca6-1989.