In Re: Barbour v.

Certiorari dismissed, June 7, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8178
In Re: KENNETH EDWARD BARBOUR,
Appellant.
-----------------------------
CHRISTOPHER GEORGE WASHINGTON,
Petitioner,
v.
WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate
Judge. (2:09-cv-00560-HCM-TEM)
Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Edward Barbour, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Barbour, a three-striker under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006), who filed a
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition on behalf of a fellow prisoner,
seeks to appeal the district court’s order providing him with
notice that signing pleadings on behalf of another may be
considered the unlicensed practice of law, and advising the
fellow prisoner that if he desires to file a § 2254 petition he
must do so personally or through counsel and sign the petition
under penalty of perjury. This court may exercise jurisdiction
only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Barbour seeks to appeal is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, deny Barbour’s motion to expedite a decision in
this appeal, and 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2