Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Turner v. Superintendent, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) John Paul Turner appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his custody and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. 2) The dismissal was interlocutory and non-appealable because Turner could amend his petition to clearly state the nature of his claims and whether he was in custody pursuant to the relevant conviction. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, also denying Turner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Turner v. Superintendent, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    1) John Paul Turner appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his custody and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. 2) The dismissal was interlocutory and non-appealable because Turner could amend his petition to clearly state the nature of his claims and whether he was in custody pursuant to the relevant conviction. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, also denying Turner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-06-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7916

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) John Paul Turner appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his custody and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. 2) The dismissal was interlocutory and non-appealable because Turner could amend his petition to clearly state the nature of his claims and whether he was in custody pursuant to the relevant conviction. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, also denying Turner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    Turner v. Superintendent, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) John Paul Turner appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his custody and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. 2) The dismissal was interlocutory and non-appealable because Turner could amend his petition to clearly state the nature of his claims and whether he was in custody pursuant to the relevant conviction. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, also denying Turner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7916

    JOHN PAUL TURNER,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    SUPERINTENDENT OF ROCKBRIDGE REGIONAL JAIL,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (CA-03-761-7-SGW)

    Submitted:

    May 31, 2005

    Decided:

    June 20, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    John Paul Turner appeals the district courts orders
    dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition
    and denying his motion for reconsideration.

    Because Turner could

    amend the petition to clearly state (1) the nature of his claims
    and

    (2)

    whether

    he

    is

    in

    dismissal

    custody
    order

    pursuant
    is

    to

    the

    interlocutory

    relevant

    conviction,

    the

    appealable.

    See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union

    392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

    and

    not

    Accordingly, we deny

    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of


    jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    Turners motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like