Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03084/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03084-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

' FIL E D 

United States C.Ourt of Ap;>cnl!l Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

SELWYN ANDREW CHARLES, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

WILLIAM L. HART, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SEP O 9 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-3084 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-3487) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Selvyn Andrew Charles brought this habeas corpus action 

challenging his conviction by a military court martial. In this 

appeal he asserts as error the district court's grant of 

respondent's second request for an extension of time to respond to 

the court's show cause order. The action is otherwise proceeding 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3084 Document: 010110089429 Date Filed: 09/09/1991 Page: 1 
l 

in the district court. The lower court concluded that the order 

from which Charles appeals is not final, that the appeal is 

legally frivolous, and denied Charles leave to proceed on appeal 

in forma pauperis. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (1988), this court may only review the 

final order in a habeas corpus proceeding. See Andrews v. United 

States, 373 U.S. 334, 340 (1963); Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364, 

370 (1920); Bermudez v. Smith, 797 F.2d 108, 109 (2d Cir. 1986); 

Stewart v. Bishop, 403 F. 2d 674, 677-78 ( 8th Cir. 1968). "A 

finial decision generally is one which ends litigation on the 

merits .... " Stewart, 403 F.2d at 678. In this case the order 

from which Charles appeals is not the final determination of the 

claims submitted to the district court. It is thus not a final 

order, and we are without jurisdiction to review it. See id. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and Charles' motion for 

leave to appeal in forma paurperis is denied. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3084 Document: 010110089429 Date Filed: 09/09/1991 Page: 2