Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01615/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01615-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR CHARLES LIGGINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-1615 EJG GGH P

vs.

DIANE K. BUTLER, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals. On July 14, 2005, petitioner filed a request for the excerpt of record. Petitioner cites

Fed. R. App. P. 10 in support of this request. 

Rule 10(b) provides that within ten days after filing the notice of appeal, the

appellant must either order from the reporter a transcript of the proceedings not already on file as

the appellant deems necessary or file a certificate stating that no transcript will be ordered. In the

instant case, only one hearing was held. On April 22, 2004, petitioner’s then-counsel appeared at

a status conference to schedule an evidentiary hearing. The date of the evidentiary hearing was

later vacated. No transcript was prepared from the April 22, 2004, status conference.

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01615-GEB-GGH Document 73 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Because petitioner has not identified the specific transcripts he is seeking, and

because the proceedings of the April 22, 2004, status conference are not relevant to petitioner’s

appeal, his request for excerpts of record is denied.

If petitioner meant to refer to Fed. Rules of App. Pro. 30 (regarding an appendix

of relevant documents from the record), petitioner is informed that the district court does not

determine what is contained in such an appendix (excerpts of record), nor is it the district court’s

responsibility to prepare such an excerpt.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s July 14, 2005, request

for excerpts of record is denied.

DATED: 8/8/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

ligg1615.app

Case 2:02-cv-01615-GEB-GGH Document 73 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 2