Cannon v. Court of Appeal etc.
Tyrrall Farrow Cannon, acting in propria persona, appeals from an order sustaining a demurrer to his complaint filed against Riverside County, attorney Jeffrey J. Stuetz, and Associate Justices Thomas Hollenhorst, Barton Gaut and Betty Richli (respondent justices). The trial court sustained the demurrer of the respondent justices without leave to amend on grounds Cannon did not allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action because judicial immunity protected the respondent justices' acts; he did not allege compliance with government claims filing requirements; and he did not particularly allege facts establishing any liability against the respondent justices. On appeal, Cannon does not address the procedure or merits of the trial court's order, or cogently explain why his complaint states a viable cause of action. Nor does Cannon comply with the Rules of Court applicable to the substance and form of his briefs. We conclude Cannon has abandoned his appellate contentions to the extent they are ascertainable, and he has not overcome the legal presumption in favor of the correctness of the court's order. Court therefore affirm the order.
Comments on Cannon v. Court of Appeal etc.