In re: Chase Hunter
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to compel [999626384-2]; denying Motion to expedite decision [999621266-2] in 14-2062, 15-1146; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999621264-2] in 14-2062, 15-1146; denying Motion for other relief [999464530-2] in 14-2062; denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999464526-2] in 14-2062; denying Motion to waive [999621272-3] in 15-1146 Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00648-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999693705].. [14-2062, 15-1073, 15-1146]
Appeal: 14-2062
Doc: 41
Filed: 11/05/2015
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2062
In Re: CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
Petitioner - Appellant.
No. 15-1073
CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MARK HERRING,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-1146
In Re: CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
Petitioner - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge (3:14-cv-00648-REP); Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge (3:14-cv-00705-HEH); Robert E. Payne, Senior District
Judge (3:14-cv-00648-REP).
Submitted:
July 30, 2015
Decided:
November 5, 2015
Appeal: 14-2062
Doc: 41
Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.
Filed: 11/05/2015
and
DIAZ,
Pg: 2 of 5
Circuit
Judges,
and
DAVIS,
Senior
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Chase Carmen Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 14-2062
Doc: 41
Filed: 11/05/2015
Pg: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
These
consolidated
petitions
for
district
court.
Hunter
relief
appeals
In
the
appeals
before
Nos.
arise
different
14-2062
district
out
and
court’s
of
judges
15-1146,
orders
(1)
two
identical
in
the
Chase
same
Carmen
conditionally
dismissing her request for injunctive relief; (2) dismissing her
request
for
temporary,
preliminary,
and
permanent
injunctive
relief, and denying her motions for permission to electronically
file her submissions and to appoint counsel; and (3) denying her
motion for reconsideration and recusal.
In No. 15-1073, Hunter
appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous her
similar
request
for
temporary,
preliminary,
and
permanent
injunctive relief.
Hunter first challenges the district courts’ denials of her
motions
for
temporary
restraining
orders.
Because
we
lack
jurisdiction to review the denial of a temporary restraining
order, we dismiss those portions of the appeals.
See Virginia
v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976).
Hunter next contends that both district courts abused their
discretion in denying her requests for preliminary and permanent
injunctions.
See Emergency One, Inc. v. Am. Eagle Fire Engine
Co., 332 F.3d 264, 267 (4th Cir. 2003) (providing standard of
review).
Our review of the record reveals no such abuse, as the
requested injunctions are barred under the Anti-Injunction Act.
3
Appeal: 14-2062
Doc: 41
Filed: 11/05/2015
Pg: 4 of 5
28 U.S.C. § 2283 (2012) (“A court of the United States may not
grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except
as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary
in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its
judgments.”).
To
the
extent
Hunter
claims
that
the
district
dispositions were otherwise erroneous, we disagree.
petitions
are
circumstances”
not
so
complex
warranting
the
as
to
appointment
create
of
courts’
Hunter’s
“exceptional
counsel.
See
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated
on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist.
of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).
the
contention
that
the
Nor do we find any support for
district
themselves from her cases.
judges
should
have
recused
See Liteky v. United States, 510
U.S. 540, 545 (1994) (holding that rulings based on facts in the
proceedings “almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or
partiality motion”).
Finally, we see no error in the district
courts’ refusals to grant her permission to file electronically.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts’ orders in part,
dismiss the appeals in part, and deny as moot the motion for a
stay pending appeal, motion to expedite, and mandamus petition
seeking a ruling on the motion for reconsideration.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
4
Appeal: 14-2062
Doc: 41
adequately
Filed: 11/05/2015
presented
in
the
Pg: 5 of 5
materials
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?