Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ted Edwin Killian v. J.B. Hall Verlin Enloe, 835 F.2d 874, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Ted Killian, a North Carolina inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was removed from work release status without justification. The district court assessed him a partial filing fee of $26.25, which he appealed. However, the Fourth Circuit found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because there was no final judgment in the district court case. The order assessing the partial filing fee was also not appealable under the collateral order doctrine or any other exception to the final judgment rule. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denied Killian in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1987-12-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 835 F.2d 874 Docket: 87-7247

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ted Killian, a North Carolina inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was removed from work release status without justification. The district court assessed him a partial filing fee of $26.25, which he appealed. However, the Fourth Circuit found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because there was no final judgment in the district court case. The order assessing the partial filing fee was also not appealable under the collateral order doctrine or any other exception to the final judgment rule. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denied Killian in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Ted Edwin Killian v. J.B. Hall Verlin Enloe, 835 F.2d 874, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ted Killian, a North Carolina inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was removed from work release status without justification. The district court assessed him a partial filing fee of $26.25, which he appealed. However, the Fourth Circuit found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because there was no final judgment in the district court case. The order assessing the partial filing fee was also not appealable under the collateral order doctrine or any other exception to the final judgment rule. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denied Killian in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    835 F.

    2d 874
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Ted Edwin KILLIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    J.B. HALL; Verlin Enloe, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 87-7247.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Sept. 30, 1987.
    Decided Dec. 10, 1987.

    Ted Edwin Killian, pro se.


    Before WIDENER, SPROUSE, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Ted Killian, a North Carolina inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action
    alleging that he had been removed from work release status without
    justification. The district court assessed him a partial filing fee of $26.25 and he
    has appealed. We dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, this Court has jurisdiction to review final decisions
    of the district court. A final decision disposes of all issues in dispute as to all
    parties. "Federal appellate jurisdiction generally depends on the existence of a
    decision by the District Court that 'ends the litigation on the merits and leaves
    nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.' " Coopers & Lybrand v.
    Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S.
    229, 233 (1945)). Final judgment has not yet been entered in this case.

    The collateral order doctrine provides a limited exception to the final judgment

    The collateral order doctrine provides a limited exception to the final judgment
    rule. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (1981); Cohen
    v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Under the collateral
    order doctrine an interlocutory order may be appealed if it (1) conclusively
    decides the disputed issue; (2) resolves an important issue which is separate
    from the merits of the case; and (3) is unreviewable on appeal from the
    judgment. Firestone, supra, at 375. These criteria are not met in this case. Nor
    is the order appealable under any other exception to the final judgment rule.

    Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this


    appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the dispositive issues recently have
    been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument.

    DISMISSED.

    You might also like