Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00046/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00046-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRRALL F. CANNON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0046 MCE DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Two motions filed by the pro se plaintiff are before the court. First, plaintiff

submitted a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication along with his initial

pleading. The motion, noticed for hearing on the non-existent date of February 31, 2005, was

served on Bill Lockyer, who is neither a party to this action nor counsel for any party at the

present time. This motion has not been filed and served in compliance with Rules 5 and 56 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is premature. This motion will be denied.

Second, plaintiff has filed a motion titled “Motion to Resurrect Request for

Counsel and Award Attorney Fees to Cover the Cost of Appointment of Counsel.” By order

filed February 1, 2005, plaintiff was informed that district courts lack authority to require counsel

to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S.

296, 298 (1989). Plaintiff was also advised that, in certain exceptional circumstances, the court

Case 2:05-cv-00046-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/29/05 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

2

may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

(9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff’s renewed motion fails to demonstrate the required exceptional

circumstances. In findings and recommendations filed concurrently with this order, the

undersigned has recommended that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied

and that this action be dismissed. For these reasons, plaintiff’s renewed motion regarding

counsel and attorney fees will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 22, 2005 motion for summary judgment or summary

adjudication is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s May 19, 2005 renewed motion for counsel and for an award of

attorney fees is denied.

DATED: August 29, 2005.

DAD:13

cann0046.31

Case 2:05-cv-00046-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 2