Jermaine Keith Walker v. David Scott Laundry
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000076709-2]; denying Motion for other relief [1000132754-3], denying Motion for other relief [1000135132-2]; denying Motion to show cause [1000132754-2], denying Motion to show cause [1000135132-3] Originating case number: 3:17-cv-00020-HEH-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Jermaine Keith Walker 7717 Secretariat Drive Midlothian, VA 23112. [17-6158]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JERMAINE KEITH WALKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00020-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: August 30, 2017
Decided: September 7, 2017
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermaine Keith Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Jermaine Keith Walker appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) complaint for lack of jurisdiction and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012) and designating the dismissal as a strike for purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012).
While the district court properly dismissed Walker’s
constitutional claims as frivolous, we find that his state law claims should have been
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that such dismissal should have been
without prejudice. Moreover, neither a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
nor a dismissal without prejudice qualifies as a strike under § 1915(g). See Moore v.
Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction); McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 397 (4th Cir. 2009)
(dismissal without prejudice). Because only part of Walker’s action was subject to
dismissal on a ground enumerated under § 1915(g), the dismissal does not count as a
strike. See Tolbert v. Stevenson, 635 F.3d 646, 651 (4th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing Walker’s action.
However, we modify the judgment to reflect that Walker’s state law claims are dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that the dismissal order is
not a strike under § 1915(g). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny
Walker’s motions for an emergency hearing and to show cause. We dispense with oral
Pg: 3 of 3
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
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?