Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06165/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06165-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELDON BURROWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C.M.O., J. KLARICH, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6165 AWI LJO P 

ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FROM

RECORD (Doc. 10.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SERVE COURTESY COPY ON RON

HOWARD

 Eldon Burrows (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on August 26, 2004. On November 1, 2004, Plaintiff

moved for the appointment of counsel. The Motion was denied by the Court on November 18,

2004. On May 31, 2005, a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order denying the Motion for

Appointment of Counsel was filed by Ron Howard, another inmate who states he has “handled

the case for [Plaintiff] from the outset, and has written all documents thus far submitted to this

Court, including this very motion.” (Motion for Reconsideration at 5.) Mr. Howard also

requests that the Court send all further legal correspondence to him to ensure court deadlines will

be met and to prevent the institution from opening mail concerning this case sent between

himself and Plaintiff. (Motion at 9.) Finally, Mr. Howard asks that the Court grant him

permission to file an Appeal in the event the Motion for Reconsideration is denied. 

Mr. Howard, as a layperson, is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law when he files

complaints and other pleadings on behalf of another inmate. Cal.Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6125,

Case 1:04-cv-06165-AWI-GSA Document 11 Filed 09/12/05 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

27

28

1The Court notes that the Motion for Appointment of Counsel was not signed by any individual. However,

the Motion for Reconsideration was clearly signed by Ron Howard. Further, many of the pleadings submitted in the

case appear to have different signatures. Thus, it is possible that Mr. Howard has signed pleadings on Plaintiff’s

behalf in the past. 

2The Court notes that on September 14, 2005, Plaintiff moved to have his address changed so that all

correspondence from the Court would go to Mr. Howard. However, again, Mr. Howard is not a party to the case and

is not authorized to practice law in the State of California or before this Court. Thus, Mr. Howard is forewarned that

the act of filing of pleadings in court on behalf of another constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and may

subject him to prosecution under both state and federal law. Cal.Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6125, 6126; 28 U.S.C.

§ 1654, Local Rule 81-180(b), (d)

2

6126; 28 U.S.C. § 1654, Local Rule 83-180(b), (d). State and Federal law does not preclude

inmates from assisting other prisoners in the preparation of petitions for post-conviction relief in

the context sanctioned by the Supreme Court in Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 490, 89 S.Ct.

747 (1969). Inmate writers may assist other prisoners in the preparation of post-conviction

relief. However, there is no federal authority that authorizes an individual to engage in the

practice of law by filing papers with the Court as the inmate’s legal representative. Storseth v.

Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). The California Supreme Court has similarly held

that absent extraordinary circumstances, an inmate has no right to file papers on behalf of another

inmate. In Re Harrell, 2 Cal.3d 675, 689, 87 Cal.Rptr. 504 (1970).1

In this case, the Motion for Reconsideration is clearly signed by Mr. Ron Howard. In

addition, Mr. Howard concedes that he has written and filed all documents submitted to the

Court thus far. As noted above, Mr. Howard is not a party to the case and as such, is not

authorized to submit pleadings on behalf of the Plaintiff. 2 Accordingly, the Motion for

Reconsideration will not be considered by this Court and will be stricken from the record. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Reconsideration is STRICKEN from the Record; and 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a courtesy copy of this Order on Mr.

Ron Howard at the address listed on Page 10 of the Motion for Reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06165-AWI-GSA Document 11 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 2