Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00089/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00089-1/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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Derrick Berry Fontenot,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00089-TUC-JGZ (EJM)

ORDER 

 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion for Custody or Release of a 

Prisoner in a Habeas Corpus Proceeding (Doc. 29), Motion to Expand Current Motion 

under Review (Doc. 30), and Motion for Status of Case and Copies (Doc. 31). 

Petitioner previously filed a Motion for Custody or Release of a Prisoner in a 

Habeas Corpus Proceeding. (Doc. 27). The Court denied the motion, reasoning that: 

“There is no controlling case law from the Ninth Circuit directing whether the district 

courts have the authority to grant release pending a decision on a habeas petition filed by 

a state prisoner. Further, even assuming this Court does possess such authority, Petitioner 

has failed to present any argument suggesting that his case falls within the ‘extraordinary 

circumstances’ where bail is warranted.” (Doc. 28 at 5). 

In his present Motion for Release, Petitioner states that he will explain why he 

should be released pending review of his § 2254 Petition. However, Petitioner fails to 

present any argument as to why this Court should grant his release, but rather focuses his 

Case 4:15-cv-00089-JGZ Document 32 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

motion on addressing the substantive arguments at issue in the Petition. Likewise, in his 

Motion to Expand the Motion for Release, Petitioner presents additional case law in 

support of his Petition, but makes no argument specific to the Motion for Release. Thus, 

Petitioner has wholly failed to present the Court with any argument as to why the Court 

should grant his release. 

Further, even assuming that the First Circuit case of Woodcock v. Donnelly, 470 

F.2d 93 (1st Cir. 1972), is binding on this Court, which it is not, the court’s statement that 

“a district court . . . has inherent power to release the petitioner pending determination of 

the merits” does not mean that the district court is required to release a petitioner simply 

because he requests it. Id. at 94. More importantly, as previously noted by this Court, the 

Ninth Circuit has not yet resolved the issue of whether a federal court has the power to 

grant bail to a prisoner pending a decision on a habeas corpus petition. See In re Roe, 257 

F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Carreira, 2016 WL 1047995, 

at *1 (D. Haw. Mar. 10, 2016) (“this Court cannot act where it lacks the authority to do 

so, and . . . it is not clear that district court authority to grant bail pending a Section 2255 

motion exists in this Circuit at this time.”). Even assuming that the district courts do have 

such authority, in Roe the court noted that bail should only be granted in extraordinary 

cases. Roe, 257 F.3d at 1080; see also Canas v. Curry, 2010 WL 5088222, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. Dec. 8, 2010) (“assuming such authority exists, the Court notes that a prisoner’s 

release on bail pending a decision in a habeas case is reserved for extraordinary cases 

involving special circumstances or a high probability of success.”). Here, even assuming 

that this Court does have the authority to grant Petitioner’s release, Petitioner’s Motion 

for Release and Motion to Expand the Motion for Release fail to make any argument as 

to why this is an “extraordinary case[] involving special circumstances [and has] a high 

probability of success” such that bail is warranted. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion for Release. (Doc. 29). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion to Expand Current 

Case 4:15-cv-00089-JGZ Document 32 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

Motion under Review. (Doc. 30). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Petitioner’s Motion for Status (Doc. 31) 

as follows: 

1) The Clerk of Court shall mail Petitioner date stamped copies of Documents 29 and 

30. 

2) The Clerk shall also mail Petitioner a copy of the docket list in this case. 

3) Petitioner is hereby notified that his § 2254 Petition is currently under review by 

this Court. All appropriate responses and replies have been filed, and no additional 

filings are required for the Court to issue a decision on the Petition. Petitioner shall 

be notified by the Court when any further action is taken in his case. 

Dated this 12th day of September, 2016. 

Case 4:15-cv-00089-JGZ Document 32 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 3