Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Norman Quincy Wright, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gentry Crowell, et al., Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 674 F.2d 521
Submitted on Briefs March 16, 1982.Decided March 19, 1982
Norman Quincy Wright, pro se.
William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Tennessee, Nashville, Tenn., for defendants-appellees.
Before LIVELY and KEITH, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
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.