Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02628/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02628-3/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ammed Hassan, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-18-02628-PHX-SRB (CDB)

ORDER 

 

 On March 15, 2019 Petitioner, Hammed Hassan, filed a Motion for Release Pending 

Appeal-Bond. In his motion he states that he should be released pending the adjudication 

of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus because his Petition raises a “substantial question 

of law and fact which is likely if Petitioner prevails to result in a reversal of sentencing.” 

He asserts that his claims present a close question upon which reasonable judges could 

differ as to whether he is entitled to relief. On March 18, 2019 the Magistrate Judge issued 

her Report and Recommendation setting out the standard applicable to release pending a 

habeas petition. That standard requires the showing of an extraordinary case involving 

special circumstances or a high probability of success. The Magistrate Judge concluded 

that there was no claim of any special circumstances and that Petitioner had failed to show 

a high probability of success. 

 Petitioner filed timely written objections to which the Government responded in 

opposition. Petitioner does not contest the Magistrate Judge’s finding that there were no 

Case 2:18-cv-02628-SRB Document 35 Filed 04/22/19 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 

special circumstances but now argues that there is a high probability of success in contrast 

to his statement in his motion that there are substantial questions and reasonable judges 

could differ on his entitlement to relief. The Government argues in its response that 

Petitioner has a low probability of success because his claims are not cognizable on habeas 

review, procedurally defaulted, or without merit as demonstrated in its Limited Answer 

(Doc. 13). 

The record in this case shows that Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial and on 

appeal his court appointed attorney was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. 

Similarly, counsel who was appointed for Petitioner’s Petition for Post-Conviction Relief 

in state court was unable to find any grounds to argue for Post-Conviction Relief. Petitioner 

filed his own brief on appeal and his own Supplemental Petition for Post-Conviction Relief 

both of which were denied. The present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus raises common 

claims seen in many petitions and nothing in that Petition nor in Petitioner’s Objections to 

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation meets the high standard of an 

extraordinary case involving a high probability of success. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion for Release Pending 

Appeal-Bond. (Doc. 29) 

 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2019. 

Case 2:18-cv-02628-SRB Document 35 Filed 04/22/19 Page 2 of 2