(HC) Kelsaw v. Horel, No. 2:2008cv01612 - Document 45 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 9/30/10 ORDERING that petitioner is granted an additional 30 days to file additional objections to the 9/14/10 findings and recommendations; 42 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. (Manzer, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Kelsaw v. Horel Doc. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RUFUS HARTY KELSAW, IV, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-1612 MCE CHS P vs. BOB HOREL, Respondent. ORDER / Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 17 corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. On September 14, 2010, findings and 18 recommendations were entered herein, recommending that the petition be denied. 19 On September 21, 2010, petitioner filed a document titled “Objections to 20 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations/ Request for Leave to Amend.” Therein, 21 petitioner gives his “limited objections” to the pending findings and recommendations. 22 Petitioner states that he is currently unable to file his full objections because he has been without 23 access to the law library and without access to his legal documents since his transfer to 24 administrative segregation on September 13, 2010. Petitioner states that expects to be able to 25 access his legal documents on or before October 7, 2010. Accordingly, petitioner’s filing titled 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations/ Request for Leave to 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Amend” will be construed as a request for an extension of time to file objections to the pending 2 findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, the request is granted. Petitioner is 3 granted an additional 30 days from the date of this order in which to file additional objections to 4 the findings and recommendations. 5 Petitioner further requests that an evidentiary hearing be held prior to the District 6 Judge’s ruling. The question whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted was considered for 7 purposes of the findings and recommendations which are currently pending. It was 8 recommended, however, that relief be denied without an evidentiary hearing because the factual 9 allegations in the petition were insufficient for habeas corpus relief. Thus, an evidentiary hearing 10 is not warranted at this time. Estrada v. Scribner, 512 F.3d 1227, 1235 (9th Cir. 2008). 11 In his “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations/ Request 12 for Leave to Amend,” petitioner also requests the appointment of counsel. There currently exists 13 no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas corpus proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 14 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of 15 counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. 16 Governing § 2254 Cases. In this case, because findings and recommendations have been filed 17 and are awaiting review by the District Judge, it does not appear that the interests of justice 18 would be served by the appointment of counsel at this time. 19 Finally, in regard to the second document that petitioner caused to be filed on 20 September 21, 2001, titled “Request for Certificate of Appealability/Request to Appeal...,” 21 petitioner is cautioned that an appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding may only be taken from a 22 “final order.” 28 U.S.C. §2253; see also Browder v. Ill. Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 265 23 (1978). Final orders are those that leave nothing to be done but the execution of the judgement. 24 See Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). In the contest of habeas corpus 25 proceedings, a final order disposes of all claims and either denies or grants habeas corpus relief. 26 See Blazak v. Ricketts, 971 F.2d 1408, 1410 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Thus, in the event that 2 1 the District Judge’s final order is adverse to any or all of petitioner’s claims, petitioner must still 2 thereafter file a notice of appeal if he wishes to appeal the court’s decision. 3 THEREFORE, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 4 THAT: 5 1. Petitioner is granted an additional 30 days from the date of this order in which to 6 file additional objections to the findings and recommendations entered September 7 14, 2010; and 8 2. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is denied. 9 10 Dated: September 30, 2010 11 12 CHARLENE H. SORRENTINO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
