Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Tony HUMPHREY, Defendant - Appellant.
Tony Humphrey seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his second motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it as unauthorized. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).
Here, while the district court denied relief on Humphrey's § 2255 motion on June 8, 2016, it subsequently granted Humphrey's first motion to amend his § 2255 motion—which was filed prior to the order denying § 2255 relief—and reopened the action on June 20, 2016. On August 16, 2016, the district court granted the Government's uncontested motion to place Humphrey's first amended § 2255 motion in abeyance for two cases then pending before this court—United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir.), cert denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 304, 205 L.Ed.2d 196 (2019), and United States v. Ali, No. 15-4433 (awaiting oral argument following supplemental briefing). Humphrey's first amended § 2255 motion remains pending in the district court, still in abeyance for this court's decision in Ali. Accordingly, because Humphrey's first amended § 2255 motion is still pending before the district court, the order denying his second motion to amend is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Bridges v. Dep't of Md. State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating that denial of motion to amend not immediately appealable). Accordingly, we 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
PER CURIAM:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-7820
Decided: June 01, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)