Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Jesse J. Pritchard, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Fred E. Jordan, Jr., Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 828 F.2d 17Unpublished Disposition
Submitted June 25, 1987.Decided August 18, 1987
Jesse J. Pritchard, Jr., appellant pro se.
Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before DONALD RUSSELL, and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Jesse James Pritchard, Jr., a Virginia inmate, filed an action alleging that he had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The court assessed Pritchard a partial filing fee which represented fifteen percent of his prison account deposits and balance during the preceding six months. Pritchard filed an affidavit stating that his balance had subsequently been reduced to zero. The court found his excuse unsatisfactory and gave him fifteen days to pay his fee. Pritchard moved again for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which the court denied. After being given an extension within which to pay his fee, Pritchard did not submit payment, and the court dismissed the action without prejudice.
Thirty-one days after dismissal, Pritchard requested an extension in which to note his appeal, which the court granted. On the final day of his extension period, Pritchard filed a second request for an extension. The court denied this second request.
We will construe Pritchard's second extension request as a valid notice of appeal. It was timely filed within his extension period, and the court was put on notice that an appeal was being taken. Cobb v. Lewis, 488 F.2d 41, 45 (5th Cir. 1974); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).
After reviewing the record, we find that in requiring a partial filing fee from Pritchard, the district court complied fully with the procedures approved by this Court in Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982). Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's action, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Pritchard's request for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues have recently been decided authoritatively.
DISMISSED.