United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs35 F.
3d 557
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Gary DIXON; State of North Carolina; Department of
Corrections; Lynn Phillips; Michael Easley,
Respondents-Appellees.
Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Sergeant FOX; Dee Harris; James Taylor, Assistant
Superintendent; Warden Dixon; Lynn C. Phillips; Franklin
E. Freeman, Jr.; Doctor Baloch; Nurse O'Neal; Lieutenant
Wilkinson; Lieutenant Moody; Mail Clerk Jones; Mr. Davis;
Finese Couch; Mr. Turrell; Mr. Debnar; J. L. Miller;
Governor Hunt; Lieutenant Walker, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 94-6322, 94-6340.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 1994.
Decided Sept. 15, 1994.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge; Malcolm
J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-94-108, MISC-94-81-5-H).
Cornelius Tucker, Jr., appellant pro se.
E.D.N.C.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
In these cases, Cornelius Tucker appeals from the district courts' orders denying
his motions for leave to file actions in district court. Under the terms of a prefiling review order, Tucker was required to seek leave from the court before
filing any actions. The district courts in both cases denied the motions to file his
complaints pursuant to the pre-filing injunction on the ground that he failed to
comply with the terms of the injunction. Recently, the pre-filing injunction at
issue in these cases was found invalid, rendering the district courts' enforcement
of its terms error. See Tucker v. Seiber, No. 93-7239 (4th Cir. Mar. 2, 1994)
(unpublished). Consequently, we vacate the district courts' orders denying
leave to file the actions and remand the cases for further proceedings. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
