Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00976/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00976-0/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 05-976 PHX-ROS (LOA)

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on Petitioner's Motion for Bail. (document # 19) Petitioner contends

that the Court should release him from State custody because the State had 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 circumst ances” or a “high probability of

success.”)

Here, Petitioner has not established a “high p robabilit y of success” in this matter. In

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

in this matter causing prejudice t o Petitioner. Special circumstances include a “serious health

det erioration” or an “unusual delay in the appeal process.” See, Mett, 41 F.3d at 1282 n.4.

Case 2:05-cv-00976-ROS Document 21 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Special circumstances do not exist in this case. Petitioner filed his § 2254 Petition on April 1,

2005. (document # 1) On Ap ril 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 3, 2005, Respondents filed a timely motion for extension of time to file

an Answer which the Court granted. (document # 14, # 17) Thereafter, Respondents filed a

second motion for extension of time (document # 18) which the Court has granted. 

Accordingly, Respondents Answer is now due August 8, 2005. Although Resp ondents have

requested two extensions of time to file an Answer in this mat t er, t he Court does not find that

those requests have prejudiced Petitioner in any manner. 

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 # 19) be

DENIED. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Nint h 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 p art ies 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). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-00976-ROS Document 21 Filed 07/18/05 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

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 M agistrate Judge=s recommendation. See, Rule 72,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 18th day of July, 2005.

 

Case 2:05-cv-00976-ROS Document 21 Filed 07/18/05 Page 3 of 3