In Re: Kenneth Barbour, No. 09-8178 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Certiorari dismissed, June 7, 2010 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8178 In Re: KENNETH EDWARD BARBOUR, Appellant. ----------------------------CHRISTOPHER GEORGE WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (2:09-cv-00560-HCM-TEM) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Edward Barbour, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Barbour, a three-striker under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006), who filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition on behalf of a fellow prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order providing him with notice that considered signing the pleadings unlicensed on behalf practice of of law, another and may advising be the fellow prisoner that if he desires to file a § 2254 petition he must do so personally or through counsel and sign the petition under penalty of perjury. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). neither a final collateral order. order The order Barbour seeks to appeal is nor an Accordingly, appealable we deny interlocutory leave to proceed or in forma pauperis, deny Barbour s motion to expedite a decision in this appeal, 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. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.