Reesman v. Haynes

Filing 60

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle denying 56 Motion to compel as moot; and overruling 57 Petitioner's objections.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Joel Reesman, Prisoner ID: 316821)(TG)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

3
4

JOEL PAUL REESMAN,

5
6
7

Petitioner,
v.
RON HAYNES,
Respondent.

8

CASE NO. C16-5925 BHS-TLF
ORDER OVERRULING
PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS
AND DENYING AS MOOT
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
COMPEL

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Joel Paul Reesman’s
(“Reesman”) objections to the nondispositive order by the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke,
United States Magistrate Judge, renoting several of Reeseman’s motions for
consideration on May 25, 2018. Dkts. 54, 57. Also before the Court is Reesman’s motion
seeking to compel the State to file the complete state court record of the proceedings
resulting in Reesman’s conviction. Dkt. 56.
On February 18, 2018, Reesman moved for the Court to appoint counsel on his
behalf. Dkt. 45. On April 12, 2018, Judge Fricke renoted Reesman’s numerous pending
motions for consideration on May 25, 3018, including Plaintiff’s motion to appoint
counsel. Dkt. 54. Judge Fricke also ordered that the State file the record of Reesman’s
criminal proceedings no later than May 11, 2018. Id. On April 16, 2018, Reesman
objected to Judge Fricke’s order and also filed a motion to compel the State to file the
complete record of his criminal proceedings. Dkts. 56, 57.

ORDER - 1

1

When a party files objections to a nondispositve order, the “district judge in the

2

case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is

3

clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

4

Reesman’s objection treats Judge Fricke’s order as a denial of his motion to

5

appoint counsel and objects to the denial of his motion. See Dkt. 57. However, Judge

6

Fricke has not denied Reesman’s motion; rather, the motion has simply been noted for

7

consideration on a later date in light of the Court’s need to review the applicable state

8

court record before it can reach a decision that properly assesses the complexity of the

9

case and Reesman’s potential likelihood of success. Because Judge Fricke’s order did not

10

deny Reesman’s motion, Reesman’s objections (Dkt. 57) to Judge Fricke’s order are

11

OVERRULLED.

12

Additionally, the Court notes that Judge Fricke has already ordered that the

13

Government file the complete state court record, including all transcripts of the

14

proceedings, on or before May 11, 2018. See Dkt. 54. The record was filed on April 17,

15

2018. Dkt. 55. Because the record has been produced as ordered by Judge Fricke,

16

Reesman’s motion to compel its production (Dkt. 56) is DENIED as moot.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated this 19th day of April, 2018.

A

19
20

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 2