Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Francis v. Ashcroft, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal. The order summarizes that Edghill Leo Francis appealed a district court order dismissing his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenged conditions of confinement. The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the district court had dismissed the petition without prejudice, allowing Francis to amend his complaint to proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 instead of § 2241. As the district court dismissal was without prejudice, it was not a final order and not subject to appellate review. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-06-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6435

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal. The order summarizes that Edghill Leo Francis appealed a district court order dismissing his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenged conditions of confinement. The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the district court had dismissed the petition without prejudice, allowing Francis to amend his complaint to proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 instead of § 2241. As the district court dismissal was without prejudice, it was not a final order and not subject to appellate review. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Francis v. Ashcroft, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal. The order summarizes that Edghill Leo Francis appealed a district court order dismissing his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenged conditions of confinement. The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the district court had dismissed the petition without prejudice, allowing Francis to amend his complaint to proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 instead of § 2241. As the district court dismissal was without prejudice, it was not a final order and not subject to appellate review. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-6435

    EDGHILL LEO FRANCIS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (CA-02-129-AM)

    Submitted:

    May 24, 2002

    Decided:

    June 17, 2002

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Edghill Leo Francis, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Edghill

    Leo

    Francis

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) petition, in which he


    challenged
    Because

    conditions

    Francis

    may

    of
    amend

    his

    confinement,

    his

    complaint

    to

    without

    prejudice.

    proceed

    under

    42

    U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2001) rather than 2241, the district
    courts dismissal without prejudice is not a final order and is not
    subject to appellate review.

    See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar

    Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.2d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
    Therefore, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this
    appeal. 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like