NORMAN QUINCY WRIGHT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
GENTRY CROWELL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

6th Cir. | 1982-03-19
No. 81-5011
674 F.2d 521 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the prisoner's claims were moot and that a pro se litigant is not entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.


Facts & Procedural History

A Tennessee State prisoner sued state officials alleging deprivation of his right to vote. The district court dismissed the action as moot due to a co…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM..

PER CURIAM..

This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which a Tennessee State prisoner sought damages from the Secretary of State of Tennessee and various election commissioners on the ground that he had been deprived of his right to vote. The district court dismissed the action on the ground that his constitutional claims had become moot by reason of a consent order entered in another district. On a motion to reconsider the district court found that the plaintiff had made no effort to vote in the May 6,1980 primary, that his original complaint referred to the November 1980 general election which was covered by the consent order previously referred to, and denied the motion for reconsideration.

On appeal the plaintiff contends that his action was not rendered moot by the consent decree and that his constitutional right to vote in the May 6th primary was infringed. Though he has proceeded pro se from the beginning of this action, he also appeals from the order of the district court denying his motion for attorney fees.

Upon consideration of the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties the court concludes that the district court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s claim for damages. We also affirm the holding of the district court that a pro se litigant is not entitled to an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw