Not surprisingly, Oscar’s motion to prohibit interference has been denied with no further briefing by the government in response or Oscar in reply.

However, a second motion for extension of time was filed which was unopposed by the government.  That’s likely to be granted for a 120 day extension.

That will provide some time for preparation.

It is extremely difficult to read transcripts, briefs and papers in prison while trying to mount a credible defense on appeal.  Oscar’s motion was an attempt at gaining some consideration while also drawing attention to the plight of an incarcerated defendant.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER;

OSCAR AMOS STILLEY,

Defendants-Appellants

))

)

)

)

)

)

Nos. 10-5055 & 10-5057

(D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00043-SPF-2)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER

Before TACHA and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Stilley has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of an order filed by
this court n.1 on June 1, 2010, which denied his motion for release pending appeal
and his motion seeking access to sufficient resources to effectively appeal. He
also seeks additional relief in the form of a “motion to prohibit interference” with
his right to reasonable access to the courts.

Mr. Stilley argues that Judge Henry should have been disqualified from
participating in the decision on his motion for release due to an alleged conflict of

n.1  Robert H. Henry was a panel member when the order was issued. He has
since resigned from service with the court. Judge Deanell Reece Tacha has been
substituted for Judge Henry in this matter.

interest. This court has previously denied reconsideration of the June 1 order
based on this same argument, which was made by Mr. Stilley’s co-defendant,
Lindsey Springer. See Order dated June 14, 2010 (denying motion for
reconsideration and recusal). As for Mr. Stilley’s request for reconsideration of
the denial of his motion seeking access to certain resources, and Mr. Stilley’s
expanded requests for additional legal resources and numerous policy changes to
be made by the Bureau of Prisons, those requests are denied. Mr. Stilley must
seek such relief from the Bureau of Prisons in the first instance through the
administrative grievance process.

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration and the “motion to prohibit
interference” are DENIED.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Advertisements