KIDERLEN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 44

Entry Discussing Petitioner's Omnibus Motion - the court, having reviewed the prior filings and orders in the action, having read and examined the omnibus motion, and being duly advised, now finds that the omnibus motion 37 must be denied. Kiderlen renews his request that he be released on bond while the action is pending. This request is denied. Kiderlen seeks interim relief in the form of suspending or invalidating his conviction. No final adjudication has been made in t his case, nor has the habeas petition been fully briefed. Kiderlen's request for that relief is denied. Motion for appointment of counsel is denied. Kiderlen seeks either the immediate issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or the is suance of an order directing his custodian to respond to the allegations of the habeas petition. The latter step has already been taken. The request for redundant relief is denied. Any relief which the omnibus motion could be construed as seeking which is not specifically addressed in this Entry is denied. Kiderlen's new address is shown in the distribution portion of this Entry. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/25/2011.(copy to petitioner via US mail) (VS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

STEVEN D. KIDERLEN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, United States Penitentiary,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:11-cv-127-JMS-DKL

Entry Discussing Petitioner’s Omnibus Motion
This is an action in which Steven Kiderlen, until recently an inmate at a federal
prison in this District, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Kiderlen’s claims are that his
custody is unlawful because of infirmities in his December 2007 conviction in the
Eastern District of Missouri. The court has ordered Kiderlen’s custodian to appear in the
action and show cause why the relief Kiderlen seeks should not be granted. Kiderlen
has also filed what he has labeled “omnibus motion,” wherein he seeks various relief
and which is addressed in this Entry.
Whereupon the court, having reviewed the prior filings and orders in the action,
having read and examined the omnibus motion, and being duly advised, now finds that
the omnibus motion [37] must be denied. This conclusion is based on the following
facts and circumstances:
1.
Kiderlen renews his request that he be released on bond while the action
is pending. This request is denied. Although federal judges in habeas corpus and §
2255 proceedings have inherent power to admit applicants to bail, the power is
exercised very sparingly. See Kramer v. Jenkins, 800 F.2d 708, 709 (7th Cir. 1986);
Cherek v. United States, 767 F.2d 335, 337 (7th Cir. 1985). The present case does not
present any exceptional circumstances entitling the petitioner to his conditional release.
Cf. Martin v. Solem, 801 F.2d 324, 330 (8th Cir. 1986) (where defendant claimed that
his reincarceration was unlawful on the grounds that he had already served his
sentence and had been discharged, the district court erred in granting bail pending
decision of defendant's habeas corpus petition because "there is nothing unusual about
a claim of unlawful confinement in a habeas proceeding.").

2.
Kiderlen seeks interim relief in the form of suspending or invalidating his
conviction. However, no final adjudication has been made in this case, nor has the
habeas petition been fully briefed. Kiderlen’s request for that relief is therefore denied.
3.

Kiderlen seeks the appointment of counsel.

a.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint
counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court determines that the
interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Factors which the
court may consider include: (1) whether the merits of the indigent's claim are
colorable; (2) ability of the indigent to investigate crucial facts; (3) whether the
nature of the evidence indicates that the truth will more likely be exposed where
both sides are represented by counsel; (4) capability of the indigent to present
his case; and (5) complexity of the legal issues raised by the complaint. Wilson v.
Duckworth, 716 F.2d 415, 418 (7th Cir. 1983).
b.
Application of the foregoing factors in this case indicates that the
petitioner’s claims are not particularly complex, that there is no likelihood that an
evidentiary hearing will be necessary, that no discovery or other investigation will
be required, that due allowance to the petitioner’s pro se status will be made and
that the petitioner has at least thus far demonstrated an exceptional ability to
express and present his claims. In addition, the petitioner has the means (writing
materials, etc.) to continue to present his claims, the petitioner is literate, and the
petitioner seems fully aware of the proceedings involving his conviction and
sentence in the Eastern District of Missouri. These are not circumstances in
which it is in the interest of justice to appoint counsel for the petitioner, and for
this reason his motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
4.
Kiderlen seeks either the immediate issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
or the issuance of an order directing his custodian to respond to the allegations of the
habeas petition. The latter step has already been taken. The request for redundant relief
is denied.
5.
Any relief which the omnibus motion could be construed as seeking which
is not specifically addressed in this Entry is denied.
6.

Kiderlen’s new address is shown in the distribution portion of this Entry.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

08/25/2011
Date: __________________
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Steven D. Kiderlen
No. 32711-044
United States Penitentiary
P.O.Box 019001
Atwater, CA 95301