Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00838/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00838-0/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

1

 In 1987, following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery, armed

burglary, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and unlawful flight. (See Doc. 18 at 1–2,

6.) He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years on

the armed robbery, armed burglary, and aggravated assault convictions and to a 2.5-year

prison term on the unlawful flight conviction. (Id. at 6.)

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kurzie Lee Curtis, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CV 12-838-PHX-PGR (DKD)

)

v. ) ORDER

)

Charles L. Ryan, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

___________________________ )

Before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion for Release Pending Appeal and Motion to

Amend the Motion for Release Pending Appeal. (Docs. 24, 26.)

On April 23, 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1) He filed an amended petition on July 27, 2012. (Doc. 12.) 

Petitioner challenges his sentence and raises claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel.1

 In their answer, Respondents argue that the petition is untimely—by 15 years—and

that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. (Doc. 18.)

Petitioner now seeks to be released from prison pending the resolution of his habeas

proceeding. It is unclear whether this Court has the authority to release a state prisoner. See

In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2001). However, even if the Court does have

Case 2:12-cv-00838-PGR Document 28 Filed 02/12/13 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 -

such authority, release is “reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances

or a high probably of success.” Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318, 318 (9th Cir.1989); see In re

Roe, 257 F.3d at 1080. Under this standard, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled

to release. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Petitioner’s Motion

for Release Pending Appeal and Motion to Amend the Motion for Release Pending Appeal.

(Docs. 24, 26.)

(2) Petitioner’s Motion for Release Pending Appeal and Motion to Amend the

Motion for Release Pending Appeal. (Docs. 24, 26) are denied.

DATED this 12th day of February, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00838-PGR Document 28 Filed 02/12/13 Page 2 of 2