Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02628/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02628-2/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 

Ammed Hassan, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-18-02628-PHX-SRB (BSB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 Petitioner, who is incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence, 

brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner has filed a motion 

for release pending the resolution of this matter. (Doc. 29.) 

 The Ninth Circuit has not resolved whether the district court may grant release 

pending resolution of a habeas corpus petition. See In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (noting divergence among circuits and declining to resolve whether release 

may be granted pending a decision by the district court on a habeas petition). Therefore, 

to resolve this motion, the Court assumes it has the authority to release Petitioner on bail 

and considers Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which governs the 

authority of the federal courts to release both successful and unsuccessful habeas 

petitioners pending appeal. See United States v. Mett, 41 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(federal sentence); Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 507 (9th Cir. 1987) (state court 

sentence). 

Case 2:18-cv-02628-SRB Document 30 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

In connection with a habeas corpus petition, bail is reserved for “‘extraordinary 

cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success.’” Mett, 41 F.3d at 

1282 (quoting Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1989)). “Special circumstances” 

include “a serious deterioration of health while incarcerated, and unusual delay in the 

appeal process.” Salerno v. United States, 878 F.2d 317 (9th Cir. 1987). Special 

circumstances also include situations in which “the sentence was so short that if bail were 

denied and the habeas petition were eventually granted, the defendant would already have 

served the sentence.” Landano v. Rafferty, 970 F.2d 1230, 1239 (3d Cir. 1992). 

 Assuming this Court has the authority to release Petitioner pending a decision on 

his habeas petition, it is not appropriate to exercise that authority in this case. Petitioner 

has not shown that special circumstances exist. Petitioner does not allege that his health 

will seriously deteriorate during his incarceration. (Doc. 29.) Additionally, there is no 

obvious risk that Petitioner’s sentence will expire before his petition could be granted. 

(Doc. 1 at 1-2 (noting that, on July 25, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to a total of fifteen 

years’ imprisonment); Doc. 29 at 1 (stating that Petitioner anticipates a release on June 

25, 2024 due to earned good time credits).) Petitioner has not identified any special 

circumstances making his situation an extraordinary case justifying release. Petitioner 

also has not shown a high probability of success. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s motion for release (Doc. 29) 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) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s 

judgment. The parties shall have fourteen 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. The parties have fourteen days within which to 

file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate 

Case 2:18-cv-02628-SRB Document 30 Filed 03/18/19 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

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 to file timely objections to 

any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 18th day of March, 2019. 

 

Case 2:18-cv-02628-SRB Document 30 Filed 03/18/19 Page 3 of 3