Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00017/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00017-1/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

1 08cv17 JM (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

M.E. POULOS, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.08cv17 JM (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECOGNIZANCE RELEASE

PENDING OUTCOME OF HABEAS

CORPUS PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. No. 10]

Petitioner filed his habeas petition on January 2, 2008. On February 29, the Court sent out an

order requiring Respondent to file either a motion to dismiss or an answer to the petition. Petitioner

filed this motion for recognizance release pending the outcome of his habeas petition on March 5, 2008. 

The Ninth Circuit has not specifically resolved the issue of whether a district court has authority

to release a state prisoner pending resolution of his or her habeas proceedings. In re Roe, 257 F.3d

1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2001). Even though it has not resolved that issue, the Court has determined that if a

district court could release a state prisoner on bail, the prisoner would have to demonstrate that his or

her case is “an ‘extraordinary case[]involving special circumstances or a high probability of success.’”

Id. (quoting Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1989)). Examples of special circumstances include

where the sentence is “so short that if bail were denied and the habeas petition ultimately granted the

petitioner would have already serve[d] the sentence.” Souliere v. Edwards, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

76657, *3 (D. Ariz. 2006) (citing Landano v. Rafferty, 970 F.2d 1230, 1239 (3rd Cir. 1992)). Another

example is “when a petitioner suffers a serious deterioration of health while incarcerated and there was

Case 3:08-cv-00017-JM-NLS Document 11 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 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

2 08cv17 JM (NLS)

an unusual delay of the appeals process.” Souliere, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76657 at *3 (citing Salerno

v. United States, 878 F.2d 317, 317 (9th Cir. 1987)). Further, a Court must consider the petitioner’s risk

of flight and the danger to the community should the prisoner be released. Mebrhato Tsehai v. Schwarte,

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68111, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 508-509

(9th Cir. 1987)).

Here, Petitioner argues he will prevail on his habeas petition because he is immune from

prosecution under the theory of entrapment by the under cover officer. He also argues that if the

undercover officer is immune from prosecution for selling narcotics, then Petitioner, too, should be

immune from prosecution for selling narcotics. In further support of his motion Petitioner says that he is

not a flight risk because of his family ties and great employment skills.

This Court finds that Petitioner has not set forth any facts that demonstrate his case is

extraordinary. He makes no showing of any special circumstances. While the Court has not examined

the merits of the petition or a response to it, it finds that Petitioner’s initial argument that he is immune

from prosecution does not indicate a high probability of success on the petition. Finally, Petitioner’s

general statement regarding flight risk and employment is not persuasive concerning his actual risk of

flight or the possibility that he is a danger to the community. For these reasons, the Court DENIES

Petitioner’s motion for recognizance release pending the outcome of his habeas petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2008

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00017-JM-NLS Document 11 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 2