Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00977/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00977-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

WO JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roman Wroclawski, 

Petitioner,

vs.

United States of America, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0977-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Stay of Certification

of Extraditability and Surrender Order (Emergency Motion) (Doc. # 7). As directed by the

Court, Respondent has filed a response (Doc. # 15). The Court also granted Petitioner’s

request for expedited consideration of the Emergency Motion and scheduled a hearing for

2:30 p.m. on Tuesday May 19, 2009.

The Court will deny the Emergency Motion as moot and permit Petitioner to file a

new motion addressing the Court’s authority to grant Petitioner’s release pending resolution

of the underlying habeas corpus petition and, if authorized, whether such release is

appropriate. 

I. Background

Petitioner is a native of Poland who is now subject to a Certificate of Extraditability

(Certificate) entered by Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns in CV No. 07-0302M (MHB).

Case 2:09-cv-00977-ROS Document 20 Filed 05/20/09 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 In his Reply in support of his Emergency Motion, Petitioner contends that a stay of

the Certificate would not impose any hardship on Respondent. Petitioner seemingly alleges

that despite the fact that the two-month extradition period is tolled during the pendency of

these habeas corpus proceedings, a prophylactic stay is necessary. In support, Petitioner

points to Matter of Extradition of Atta, which stayed the extraditee’s certification of

extraditability for thirty days to facilitate the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

706 F. Supp. 1032, 1052 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Presumably, a stay would be unnecessary after

the filing of the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner’s extradition would

automatically be tolled. And Petitioner does not identify any reason to grant a stay apart

from the lack of harm to Respondent. Consequently, while a stay might be appropriate to

provide time for an individual to prepare and file a habeas corpus petition, the Court finds

that a stay is not necessary under these circumstances. 

- 2 -

Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

challenging the finding of probable cause underlying the Certificate. In his Emergency

Motion, Petitioner seeks a stay of the Certificate pending the resolution of his habeas corpus

petition. The Court ordered an expedited response to the Emergency Motion and set a

hearing for Tuesday May 19, 2009 (Doc. # 12). 

II. Emergency Motion

Petitioner seeks a stay of his extradition pursuant to Rules 1(b) and 11 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner argues that the standard governing preliminary

injunctions is applicable in this context and that he has demonstrated a strong likelihood of

success on the merits and a threat of irreparable injury (Doc. # 7, citing Winter v. Natural

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). Respondent has responded

contending that a stay is unnecessary, as 18 U.S.C. § 3188 automatically tolls the Certificate

during the pendency of Petitioner’s habeas corpus proceeding. See Barrett v. United States,

590 F.2d 624, 626 (6th Cir. 1978). The Court agrees with Respondent that the Certificate is

automatically tolled during these proceedings and a stay need not issue.1

 Consequently, the

Court will deny Petitioner’s Emergency Motion as moot.

III. Release Pending Resolution of Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Because Petitioner’s request for a stay is moot, the remaining issue is whether he must

Case 2:09-cv-00977-ROS Document 20 Filed 05/20/09 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

be detained pending resolution of his habeas corpus petition. Petitioner is currently

scheduled to self surrender to the United States Marshal on Wednesday May 20, 2009.

Petitioner did not specifically seek release pending his habeas corpus proceedings, but such

request may be inferred by his request for a stay. Respondent contends, however, that

Petitioner must remain in custody pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 while his habeas corpus

petition is pending. Respondent further argues that the Court has no discretion to release

Petitioner as the statutory language of § 3184 is “not susceptible to interpretation” (Doc. #

15 at 4). But rather than citing applicable case law, Respondent makes general averments

regarding statutory construction. And while a reading of § 3184 suggests that the Court has

no discretion to release Petitioner pending resolution of his habeas corpus petition, there is

case law that states the exact opposite. Indeed, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has made

clear that an individual may be entitled to release pending resolution of extradition

proceedings under “special circumstances.” U.S. v. Williams, 611 F.2d 914 (1st Cir. 1979)

(citing Beaulieu v. Hartigan, 554 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1977). Nor is there any distinction between

pre-hearing or post-hearing release applications. Id. And Magistrate Judge Burns explicitly

determined that special circumstances existed warranting Petitioner’s release until this point.

There is no argument or evidence regarding whether “special circumstances” still exist that

would make Petitioner eligible for release. Consequently, the Court finds that the parties

have not adequately briefed this issue and declines to make this determination in the absence

of the facts and applicable law. 

Petitioner further seeks a stay of the self-surrender order pending briefing on whether

Petitioner is entitled to release (Doc. # 16). Because Petitioner has been out of custody for

nearly a year without incident, the fact that he is not a flight risk and has been fitted with an

electronic monitoring device, and the nonexistent prejudice to Respondent, the Court will

grant Petitioner’s request for a stay of the self-surrender order pending further briefing (Doc.

# 16). 

///

Case 2:09-cv-00977-ROS Document 20 Filed 05/20/09 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Stay of Certification of Extraditability and

Surrender Order (Dkt.# 7.) is denied as moot.

(2) Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Two-Week Stay of Surrender Order,

Continuance of Hearing, and Supplemental Briefing (Dkt.#16.) is granted to the extent that

Petitioner’s self-surrender date is changed from May 20, 2009 to June 4, 2009. 

(3) Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite Ruling on Motion for Two-Week Stay of

Surrender Order (Dkt.# 17.) is granted. 

(4) Petitioner must file a motion requesting release pending resolution of these

habeas corpus proceedings no later than 5:00 p.m. Friday May 22, 2009. Respondent may

file a response no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 27, 2009 and Petitioner may file a reply no

later than 5:00 p.m. May 29, 2009. 

(5) A hearing on Petitioner’s forthcoming motion for release will be held at 2:00

p.m. on Thursday June 4, 2009. 

DATED this 19th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00977-ROS Document 20 Filed 05/20/09 Page 4 of 4