Levy v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
| Decision Date | 14 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 26298.,26298. |
| Parties | Ethel Stone LEVY, Appellant, v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Ethel Stone Levy, pro se.
William A. Meadows, U. S. Atty., Alfred E. Sapp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. of Florida, Miami, Fla., for appellees.
Before TUTTLE and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges, and MITCHELL, District Judge.
The appellant, pro se, has filed an appeal from an order of the trial court revoking an earlier order of dismissal for failure to allege a state of facts on which relief could be granted, and allowing appellant the right to file an amendment within 60 days, through an attorney only, and not pro se.
Two things stand out in the effort made here by Mrs. Levy. The first is that she is suffering under a strong conviction that she has been badly treated by certain stock brokers or dealers whose manipulations, she claims, have deprived her of her money and destroyed her peace of mind as well. The second is that she is equally convinced that agencies of the United States and/or the State of Florida have done her actionable wrong in not protecting her interests.
The trial court, after initially dismissing Mrs. Levy's complaint sua sponte, and without a hearing, later, on March 5, 1968, entered the subsequent order from which she seeks to appeal:
At plaintiff's request, and because her claim was not one which the Economic Opportunity Legal Services Program was able to undertake, Bruce Rogow was permitted to withdraw as counsel of record. She asserts that she is unable to obtain counsel to handle her case, and, on May 28, 1968, obtained leave to file this appeal in forma pauperis.
Although we find it difficult to ascertain what claim Mrs. Levy might be able to allege by amendmen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wingerter v. Chester Quarry Co.
...is plainly not a final decision because it allows the litigation to continue") (citations omitted); Levy v. Securities & Exchange Comm'n, 405 F.2d 484, 486 (5th Cir. 1968) (same); La Capria v. Compagnie Maritime Belge, 373 F.2d 579, 581 (2d Cir. 1967) ("No discussion is required to show tha......
-
Walker v. Option One Mortg. Corp.
...Police, 441 F.3d 197, 206 (4th Cir.2006) (ruling on motion to amend pleading interlocutory and nonappealable); Levy v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n, 405 F.2d 484, 486 (5th Cir.1968) (same); Walker v. City of Pine Bluff, 414 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir.2005) (same); Broyhill Furniture Indus., Inc. v......
-
Wallace v. County of Comal
...Ordinarily, an order granting leave to amend "is not an appealable order, since no final judgment has been entered." Levy v. SEC, 405 F.2d 484, 486 (5th Cir.1968). However, "[i]n the interest of judicial economy, this court may exercise its discretion to consider pendant appellate jurisdict......
-
Horttor v. Livingston
...possible. The order directing Horttor to a file an amended complaint is not an immediately appealable order. See Levy v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 405 F.2d 484, 486 (5th Cir. 1968); see also Reedom v. Mosley, No. 94-11097, 51 F.3d 1041, 1995 WL 152857, at *1 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished); 5TH CI......