Opinion ID: 742463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Terms and Conditions of Probation

Text: 11 Ross also appeals from a proposal by Judge Quackenbush to modify Ross's Supervised Release to prevent him from writing harassing letters to persons involved in Ross's lawsuits. Judge Quackenbush first proposed the modification in an Order to Show Cause (OSC), signed September 29, 1995. Judge Quackenbush and Ross then discussed the proposal at the OSC hearing on October 23, 1995. Finally, on November 3, 1995, Judge Quackenbush ordered that further proceedings on the proposed modification would be continued for thirty days. 12 Neither the September 29 order, nor the November 3 order, are appealable. The September 29 order was an Order to Show Cause, which is not an appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Weitzman v. Stein, 897 F.2d 653, 657 (2d Cir.1990); Toledo Metal Wheel Co. v. Foyer Bros. & Co., 223 F. 350 (6th Cir.1915). Cf. In re Establishment Inspection of Microcosm, 951 F.2d 121, 121 n. 1 (7th Cir.1991) (doubting, but not holding, that OSC is not an appealable order). 13 The November 3 Order also was not appealable. In that order, the district court stated: 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on the modification of the conditions of the Defendant's Supervised Release shall be continued for a period of 30 days. If the Defendant does not resume his prior pattern of mailing unsolicited letters, not required by law, to persons associated with his various legal actions, then the matter of an modification of Supervised Release conditions pertaining thereto be terminated, subject to reopening if such conduct is thereafter resumed. 15 In view of the nature of this Order, no further date will be set at this time for further of this matter. 16 The primary effect of this order was to continue proceedings on modifying Ross's Supervised Release. At oral argument, Ross indicated his concern that the order effectively and indefinitely prevented him from writing letters to persons involved in his various lawsuits. On the contrary, we conclude that the order was of no force or effect with regard to Ross's right to send such letters. Rather, the court simply noted its authority to modify Ross's supervised release if Ross's harassing behavior continued. Because the November 3 order was effective only to continue the proceedings, it is not an appealable order.