Alecia Farley v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 18-2064 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2064 ALECIA Y. FARLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as Trustee for CWABS asset-backed certificates, Series 2006-8 and all privies known and unknown c/o Shapiro & Brown, LLP and all privies known and unknown, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00506-REP) Submitted: February 27, 2019 Decided: March 11, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alecia Y. Farley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alecia Y. Farley appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and directing her to show cause why the court should not hold her in contempt for violating a prefiling injunction. Because Farley voluntarily dismissed her complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), we dismiss as moot the appeal of the denial of her IFP application. See Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 669 (2016) (“A case becomes moot . . . when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Turning to the show cause portion of the order, this court exercises jurisdiction only over “final decisions of the district courts,” 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). Because the order to show cause is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, we dismiss this part of the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Farley’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal. 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 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.
