Elvis Jones v. ACA, No. 20-6255 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6255 ELVIS WAYNE JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE AMERICAN CORRECTIONS ASSOCIATION, Standards and Accreditation Department; THE VIRGINIA CONTROLLER; THE ACA- POLUNSKY AUDITS; POLUNSKY FACULTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00100-RAJ-LRL) Submitted: April 22, 2021 Decided: April 26, 2021 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elvis Wayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Elvis Wayne Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action for failure to comply with the court’s prior order to submit an amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and statutory filing fee or in forma pauperis application within the allotted time. Before this appeal was filed, Jones submitted to the district court an amended § 1983 complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Jones now has complied with the district court’s prior order and the district court will obtain jurisdiction to review the filings upon disposition of this appeal, we conclude there is no relief Jones could obtain by way of this appeal, and we dismiss the appeal as moot. See CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne, 792 F.3d 469, 474 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Litigation may become moot during the pendency of an appeal when an intervening event makes it impossible for the court to grant effective relief to the prevailing party.”). We further deny Jones’ motions for federal transit extension, summary judgment, default judgment, and injunctive relief pending 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.
