Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00791/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00791-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Marcos Soto-Mendoza, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-16-00791-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Grant Bail to Movant Pending 

the Disposition of the § 2255. (Doc. 23). In Petitioner’s habeas petition, he alleges 

ineffective assistance of counsel. In support of his Motion to Grant Bail, Petitioner cites 

Martin v. Solem for the proposition that district courts have the inherent power “to enlarge 

a state prisoner on bond pending hearing and decision on his [or her] application for a writ 

of habeas corpus.” 801 F.2d 324, 329 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing In re Wainwright, 518 F.2d 

173, 174 (5th Cir.1975)). 

 Despite Petitioner’s citation to Martin v. Solem, in this Circuit, it is unclear whether 

the Court has the authority to grant bail pending the resolution of a habeas petition. See 

United States v. McCandless, 841 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 2016) (“We have not yet decided 

whether district courts have the authority to grant bail pending resolution of a habeas 

petition, and we need not resolve that question today.”). If the Court does have that 

authority, it “is reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high 

probability of success.” Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318, 318 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Case 4:16-cv-00791-CKJ Document 25 Filed 02/05/19 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 Petitioner claims that his case involves an “exceptional circumstance” and writes: 

The exceptional circumstance is the fact that the benefit of having obtained 

justice via § 2255 will be lost due to release long after the time any just 

sentence would have expired. The errors, both by counsel and the 

Government in this matter have cost Movant severely. He has been 

incarcerated ever since 2011. He desires release pending the disposition of 

this matter to enable him to be with his family and begin to put his life back 

together. A “win” will be hollow if it comes any later. 

(Doc. 23, pg. 2). 

 As best the Court can discern from Petitioner’s argument, Petitioner claims that even 

if his habeas petition is successful, any relief he would receive would be “hollow” because 

he would have already served a larger sentence than what he should have served. Petitioner 

has provided no further evidence that his case is “extraordinary” or involves a “special 

circumstance.” “Examples of such circumstances include the raising of substantial claims 

upon which the appellant has a high probability of success, a serious deterioration of health 

while incarcerated, and unusual delay in the appeal process.” Salerno v. United States, 878 

F.2d 317, 317 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner has provided no indication that his situation is 

sufficiently “special” to permit release on bail. What Petitioner requests is a complete 

circumnavigation of the judicial process. The Court cannot rectify a theoretical future 

injustice by granting bail at this time. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Petitioner’s Motion to Grant Bail to Movant Pending the Disposition of the § 2255 

(Doc. 23) is denied. 

2. Petitioner’s Request to Submit for Decision the Disposition of the 2255 or Bail 

Motion (Doc. 24) is denied. 

 Dated this 5th day of February, 2019. 

Case 4:16-cv-00791-CKJ Document 25 Filed 02/05/19 Page 2 of 2