Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01277/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01277-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fox Salerno, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-1277 PHX-ROS (LOA)

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on Petitioner's Motion for Bail. (document # 9) Petitioner contends

that the Court should release him from State custody because the State has delayed in

responding to his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and such delay has prejudiced Petitioner.

“Bail pending a decision in a habeas case is reserved for extraordinary cases involving

special circumstances or a high probability of success.” Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318 (9th Cir.

1989)(finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to release.) See also,

United States v. Mett, 41 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 1994)(holding that petitioners failed to

demonstrate that their case involved “extraordinary circumstances” or a “high probability of

success.”)

Here, Petitioner has not established a “high probability of success” in this matter. In an

attempt to establish special circumstances, Petitioner contends that the State has delayed in this

matter causing prejudice to Petitioner. Special circumstances include a “serious deterioration

of health while incarcerated” or an “unusual delay in the appeal process.” See, Mett, 41 F.3d

at 1282 n.4. Special circumstances do not exist in this case. Petitioner filed his § 2254 Petition

Case 2:05-cv-01277-ROS Document 12 Filed 07/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

on April 29, 2005. (document # 1) On May 27, 2005, the Court ordered that the Petition be

served on Respondents and that Respondents file an Answer within forty days of the date of

service. (document # 4) On June 10, 2005, service was made on Respondents. (document # 5)

Thereafter, Respondents filed a timely motion for extension of time to file an Answer which the

Court recently granted. Accordingly, Respondents Answer is now due September 1, 2005.

Petitioner has not shown that the extension of time will prejudice him in any way. 

Because Petitioner has not established the existence of “special circumstances” or a “high

probability of success” his motion for bail fails.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Motion for Bail (document # 9) be

DENIED. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court=s judgment. The parties shall

have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(e),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the

District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate

Judge will be considered a waiver of a party=s right to appellate review of the findings of fact

in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge=s recommendation. See, Rule

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 19th day of July, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01277-ROS Document 12 Filed 07/21/05 Page 2 of 2