Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00369/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00369-1/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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

NORMAN ANTHONY KING, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, and )

CHARLES GILKEY, Warden, )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-00369-OWW-TAG-HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR STAY OF EXECUTION AND RELEASE

ON BAIL PENDING DECISION

(Doc. 7)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

The instant petition, challenging the calculation of Petitioner’s good time credits pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b), was filed on March 21, 2005. (Doc. 1). On August 18, 2005, the Court

ordered Respondent to file an opposition to the petition. (Doc. 6). On August 26, 2005,

Petitioner filed the instant motion, requesting immediate issuance of a “stay of execution” of his

sentence and an order releasing Petitioner on security of bond pending adjudication of the merits

of his petition. (Doc. 7). The basis for Petitioner’s motion is that, by his calculation, he should

be released from custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) on September 19, 2005; however,

because of the BOP’s interpretation of § 3626(b), he was not scheduled to be released until

November 29, 2005. (Doc. 7, p. 1). Thus, Petitioner alleged that the Court’s order requiring

Respondent to file a response within ninety days would delay any adjudication on the merits until

long after the date Petitioner argues is his correct release date. (Id.). 

Case 1:05-cv-00369-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 03/21/06 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

DISCUSSION

Initially, the Court notes that the Ninth Circuit has not yet determined whether the district

court has the authority to release a state prisoner on bail pending resolution of a habeas

proceeding. In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2001.) However, even assuming a

district court has this power, the exercise of such authority is reserved for extraordinary cases. 

Id., 257 F.3d at 1080; see also United States v. Mett, 41 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 1994) (bail

pending the resolution of a habeas corpus petition filed in a district court is reserved to

"extraordinary cases involving special circumstances" and where there is a high probability of the

petitioner's success). A petitioner must demonstrate some circumstance that makes him

exceptional and especially deserving of such special treatment in the interests of justice. See

Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (Douglas, Justice, in chambers); Benson v. California, 328

F.2d 159, 162 (9th Cir. 1964). In addition to these factors, the Court must take into consideration

the petitioner’s risk of flight and the danger to the community should he be released. See Marino

v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 508-09 (9th Cir. 1987).

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s arguments for his release and concludes that they do

not meet the above requirements. First, Petitioner fails to show that there is a “high probability”

that his claim will succeed. The Court as yet has not had an opportunity to conduct a thorough

review of the merits of Petitioner’s claim, and, of course, any determination as to the eventual

success of Petitioner’s claim must await such a review. The Court notes, however, that the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals has indicated that “even if we found that the allegations in his petition

for habeas corpus made out a clear case for his release...[,] [s]omething more than that is required

before we would be justified in granting bail.” Benson v. California, 328 F.2d 159, 162 (9th Cir.

1964). Based upon Respondent’s answer, which cites numerous decisions of the Ninth Circuit,

the controlling authority for this Court, rejecting Petitioner’s interpretation of § 3626(b), there is

serious doubt that his claim will prevail. 

Second, even assuming, arguendo, that Petitioner will prevail on the merits of his claim,

he has not shown any other special circumstances are present that would justify the setting of

bail. Although Petitioner does indicate that any delay will in essence make the 71-day

Case 1:05-cv-00369-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 03/21/06 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

differential between Petitioner’s interpretation of credits earned and that of BOP, Petitioner has

only himself to blame for this predicament. He indicated in his motion that he had argued “this

issue administratively for over 3 years....” (Doc. 7, p. 1). Had Petitioner proceeded with greater

diligence, his habeas corpus petition could have been filed earlier, i.e., at a time when the Court’s

review of the merits had the potential to afford him real relief. Standing alone, his claim of

potential mootness does not constitute an “extraordinary circumstance” justifying release on bail.

Third, Respondent’s discussion of the procedural history of Petitioner’s case indicates

that he is a substantial flight risk. Petitioner lived in Canada after release from federal prison in

1991 and later fled to Mexico before being apprehended on the charges for which he is now

imprisoned. Petitioner’s convictions are for various types of fraud, which cast further doubt on

his integrity and veracity. (Doc. 9). 

Considering all of the foregoing factors, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to

make a showing that he satisfies the requisite “exceptional” circumstances for granting bail in the

instant case. 

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion Requesting a Stay of

Execution of Sentence And Release On Bail Bond Pending Court’s Decision In This Matter

(Doc. 7), is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00369-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 3