Johnson v. True

Fourth Circuit

Johnson v. True

32 F. App'x 692

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 2002

Docket01-7066

StatusUnpublished

This text of 32 F. App'x 692 (Johnson v. True) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. True, 32 F. App'x 692 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Virginia inmate Kevin Johnson filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001), complaining about numerous allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions. The Defendants, various prison officials, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because Johnson had not exhausted his administrative remedies as to every claim. The district court denied the motion to dismiss.

Subsequently, the district court discovered that three of Johnson’s previous actions had been dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court ordered Johnson to pay the filing fee within twenty days or risk dismissal of the lawsuit. When Johnson failed to comply with this order, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for non-payment of the fee.

Johnson appealed, and the Defendants cross-appealed, seeking a review of the court’s order denying their motion to dismiss and another order that the Defendants supply Johnson with copies of certain administrative regulations. Johnson’s appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. It is Defendants’ cross-appeal that is before us.

We dismiss the appeal for want of standing. A party must be aggrieved by a final order in order to have standing to appeal. See Deposit Guaranty Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 333-34,100 S.Ct. 1166, 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980); HCA Health Servs. of Va. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 957 F.2d 120, 123 (4th Cir.1992). Here, the Defendants are not aggrieved by the final order; indeed, that order bears no substantive relationship to either of the earlier orders.

*694 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. The motions to consolidate and to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, for reconsideration, and for “panel hearing or rehearing en banc” are denied.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Virginia inmate Kevin Johnson filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001), complaining about numerous allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions. The Defendants, various prison officials, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because Johnson had not exhausted his administrative remedies as to every claim. The district court denied the motion to dismiss.

Subsequently, the district court discovered that three of Johnson’s previous actions had been dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court ordered Johnson to pay the filing fee within twenty days or risk dismissal of the lawsuit. When Johnson failed to comply with this order, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for non-payment of the fee.

Johnson appealed, and the Defendants cross-appealed, seeking a review of the court’s order denying their motion to dismiss and another order that the Defendants supply Johnson with copies of certain administrative regulations. Johnson’s appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. It is Defendants’ cross-appeal that is before us.

We dismiss the appeal for want of standing. A party must be aggrieved by a final order in order to have standing to appeal. See Deposit Guaranty Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 333-34,100 S.Ct. 1166, 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980); HCA Health Servs. of Va. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 957 F.2d 120, 123 (4th Cir.1992). Here, the Defendants are not aggrieved by the final order; indeed, that order bears no substantive relationship to either of the earlier orders.

*694 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. The motions to consolidate and to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, for reconsideration, and for “panel hearing or rehearing en banc” are denied.

DISMISSED.

Hca Health Services of Virginia, T/a Henrico Doctors' Hospital Richmond Community Hospital, a Virginia Non-Stock Corporation Richmond Eye and Ear Hospital, a Virginia Non-Stock Corporation v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Corporation Metlife Healthcare Management Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Hca Health Services of Virginia, T/a Henrico Doctors' Hospital Richmond Community Hospital, a Virginia Non-Stock Corporation Richmond Eye and Ear Hospital, a Virginia Non-Stock Corporation v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Corporation Metlife Healthcare Management Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

957 F.2d 120 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. App'x 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-true-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack