Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02404/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02404-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Chastabear Parker, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

State of Arizona, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-16-02404-PHX-PGR (BSB)

REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Petitioner, who is incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, 

brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 5.) Petitioner has filed a motion 

for bail pending the resolution of this matter. (Doc. 13.) 

 The Ninth Circuit has not resolved whether the district court may grant release on 

bail pending resolution of a habeas corpus petition. See In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077, 1080 

(9th Cir. 2001) (noting divergence among circuits and declining to resolve whether 

release may be granted pending a decision by the district court on a habeas petition). 

Therefore, to resolve this motion, the Court assumes it has the authority to release 

Petitioner on bail and considers Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

which governs the authority of the federal courts to release both successful and 

unsuccessful habeas petitioners pending appeal. See United States v. Mett, 41 F.3d 1281, 

1282 (9th Cir. 1994) (federal sentence); and Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 507 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (state court sentence). In connection with a habeas corpus petition, bail is 

reserved for “‘extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high probability 

Case 2:16-cv-02404-PGR Document 15 Filed 10/04/16 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 

of success.’” Mett, 41 F.3d at 1282 (quoting Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 

1989)). “Special circumstances” include “a serious deterioration of health while 

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

F.2d 317 (9th Cir. 1987). Special circumstances also include situations in which “the 

sentence was so short that if bail were denied and the habeas petition were eventually 

granted, the defendant would already have served the sentence.” Landano v. Rafferty, 

970 F.2d 1230, 1239 (3rd Cir. 1992). 

 Assuming that this Court has the authority to release Petitioner pending a decision 

on his habeas petition, it is not appropriate to exercise that authority in this case. 

Petitioner has not shown that special circumstances exist. Petitioner does not allege that 

his health will seriously deteriorate during his incarceration. (Doc. 13.) Additionally, 

there is no obvious risk that Petitioner’s sentence will expire before his Amended Petition 

could be granted. On March 27, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to a total of ten years’ 

imprisonment followed by lifetime probation. (Doc. 7 at 1.) Petitioner does not identify 

any special circumstances making his situation an extraordinary case justifying release. 

Petitioner also has not shown a high probability of success. The Amended Petition was 

recently filed and is not fully briefed. However, review of the Amended Petition does not 

reveal a high probability that Petitioner will prevail. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s motion for release on bail (Doc. 13) be 

DENIED. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s 

judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. The parties have fourteen days within which to 

file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate 

Case 2:16-cv-02404-PGR Document 15 Filed 10/04/16 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 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to 

any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a 

party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered 

pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 4th day of October, 2016. 

 

Case 2:16-cv-02404-PGR Document 15 Filed 10/04/16 Page 3 of 3