Hieda Keeler v. James Fox, No. 12-2447 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2447 HIEDA A. KEELER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES D. FOX, Police Chief; THOMAS A. SHULL, JR., Officer; OFFICER DAVID GREEN; JUSTIN BRIGGS, Officer; MICHELLE RIVERA, Officer; JOHN POLAK, Sargeant; LIEUTENANT SUTTON; M. JOHNSON, Detective; HOSE H. HERNANDEZ-ZAMORA, Officer; LARRY MINKOFF, Captain; NEWPORT NEWS SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; GABE MORGAN, Sheriff; SHERIFF MALE, responded to Riverside; VIRGINIA BEACH PSYCHIATRIC CENTER; STEPHEN G. CUNNINGHAM, Dr.; MARK G. CLARKE, Dr.; JUDITH DOCKERY, Attorney; OFFICER NEIDENGARD; OFFICER JUNEAU; SARGEANT HINES; OFFICER HANKINS; PAUL COMPTON, Virginia State Police Trooper; TONY PASSARO, Virginia State Police Trooper; DARRELL HOLLOWELL, Virginia State Police Trooper; FEMALE EMT, Newport News EMT; MALE EMT, Newport News EMT; CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS; SHERIFF FEMALE, responded to Riverside; CHAD DORSK, Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00325-AWA-TEM) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hieda A. Keeler, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Mary August Huffman, HANCOCK DANIEL JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Glen Allen, Virginia; Megan Paulita Bradshaw, Dante Medardo Filetti, GOODMAN, ALLEN & FILETTI, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia; Farnaz Farkish, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Darlene P. Bradberry, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia; Joshua James Coe, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Hieda A. Keeler seeks to appeal the district court s order permitting the substitution of defense counsel, denying her motion for appointment of counsel, and various other issues. 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, 545-46 (1949). The issues nor Keeler seeks to appeal are neither final appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. orders Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.