Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_94-cv-06199/USCOURTS-caed-1_94-cv-06199-0/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 FARROW CANNON,

Plaintiff, CV F 94 6199 REC WMW P

vs. ORDER RE MOTIONS

(DOCUMENTS 40, 41)

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, , et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Pending before the court are

plaintiff’s motions for the release of the case file and to reopen the case.

This action was closed on May 25, 1995. The District Court adopted the findings

and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The dismissal was based on plaintiff’s failure to

allege sufficient facts to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation and an Equal

Protection violation. Plaintiff appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s

decision. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the court file be released to him. 

Plaintiff is advised that the official file is the property of the court, and shall remain in the

custody of the Clerk of Court. Plaintiff is entitled to copy the file. Should plaintiff choose to do

so, he should contact the Clerk’s Office to arrange for copying and the payment of copying fees.

Case 1:94-cv-06199-AWI -JLT Document 42 Filed 09/30/05 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

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to reopen the case. Plaintiff’s sole ground for his

motion is the conduct of individuals at Ironwood State Prison. Specifically, plaintiff seeks legal

redress for the conduct of individuals not named in this case, for conduct that occurred after the

closing of this case and unrelated to this case. Plaintiff is advised that nothing in the dismissal

of this case bars plaintiff from filing another complaint regarding conduct unrelated to this case. 

Plaintiff offers no authority for the proposition that this case should be reopened.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the release of

the case file and motion to reopen the case are denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:94-cv-06199-AWI -JLT Document 42 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2