Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01958/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01958-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARION C. WOLFE, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-1958 FCD PAN P

vs.

EDWARD ALAMERIDA, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order filed September 25, 2003, the court

determined that claims 11 and 16 in petitioner’s original petition were unexhausted and that

claims 14, 17, and 19 were not cognizable in this federal habeas corpus action. The court

therefore recommended dismissal of the latter claims and dismissed the petition with leave to file

an amended petition raising only exhausted claims together with a motion to stay the action. On

October 9, 2003, petitioner filed an amended petition which included a motion to stay this action

pending exhaustion of state remedies as to two additional claims. By order filed October 24,

2003, the district court adopted the recommendation that claims 14, 17, and 19 be dismissed. By

order filed March 17, 2004, this action was stayed pending exhaustion of state remedies as to

previously unexhausted claims. In that order, petitioner was directed to notify the court upon

Case 2:02-cv-01958-JKS Document 81 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 5
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 Said briefing is identified as ArgumentsN, Q, and S, respectively. 

1

2

completion of the state exhaustion proceedings and, if said proceedings had not concluded within

six months, to file a status report.

On September 8, 2004, petitioner filed a status report in which he indicated that

claims were still pending in the California Supreme Court. On January 28, 2005, petitioner filed

a memorandum of points and authorities in support of his amended petition and a motion for bail

pending appellate review. The latter document contained no indication that state exhaustion

proceedings had concluded and no request to lift the stay of this action. The latter document also

contains briefing in support of claims 14, 17, and 191

On April 4, 2005, petitioner filed a document styled as a motion for enlargement

of time. The substance of the motion, however, appears to be a further request to be admitted to

bail pending appeal. 

On April 29, 2005, petitioner filed a motion to supplement his amended petition

and to lift the stay of this action. Appended to the motion is an order filed in the California

Supreme Court on April 13, 2005, denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner

therein. It appears that the state court proceedings for which this action was stayed have been

completed. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to lift the stay will be granted.

Petitioner seeks to supplement his amended petition with six claims, identified in

the motion to supplement as Grounds 11 22, 24, 25, 26, and 27. The Local Rules of this Court

require a pleading to be complete in itself without reference to prior pleadings. See Local Rule

15-220. Given the number of claims raised in this action, the court intends to require petitioner

to file one second amended petition that contains all of the cognizable exhausted claims that he

seeks to present in this action. Prior to requiring petitioner to file said second amended petition,

however, the court will direct respondents to respond to petitioner’s motion to add to this action

the six claims described in petitioner’s April 29, 2005 motion. Following resolution of said

Case 2:02-cv-01958-JKS Document 81 Filed 02/24/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 Petitioner should not file any further amended pleading until directed to do so by the 2

court. Failure to comply with this order may result in imposition of sanctions.

 On October 28, 2005, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file two exhibits in support 3

of his motions for bail. That motion will be granted.

3

motion, petitioner will be directed to file a second amended petition raising all, and only all, of

the claims on which this action will be proceeding.2

Finally, petitioner’s further requests for bail pending habeas review in this court

will be denied. It is firmly established that it is within the inherent power of a district court to 3

enlarge a state prisoner on bond pending hearing and decision on his application for a writ of

habeas corpus. See e.g., In re Wainwright, 518 F.2d 173, 174 (5th Cir. 1975); United States ex

rel. Thomas v. New Jersey, 472 F.2d 735, 743 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 878 (1973);

Woodcock v. Donnelly, 470 F.2d 93, 94 (1st Cir. 1972) (per curiam). However, the bail standard

for a person seeking collateral review is markedly different from the standard applied to a pretrial

detainee. Persons accused of crimes and awaiting trial are presumed innocent and thus enjoy an

Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive bail. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4 (1951). In

contrast, a habeas corpus petitioner requesting postconviction relief has already been convicted

and thus is no longer presumed innocent and no longer enjoys a constitutional right to freedom,

however conditional. Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3 (1964) (Douglas, J., in chambers); Glynn v.

Donnelly, 470 F.2d 95, 98 (1st Cir. 1972).

In Aronson, Justice Douglas set forth the following guidelines for determining

when a habeas corpus petitioner could be released on bail:

In this kind of case it is therefore necessary to inquire whether, in

addition to there being substantial questions presented by the

appeal, there is some circumstance making this application

exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interests of

justice. See Benson v. California, 328 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1964).

Aronson, 85 S. Ct. at 5 (emphasis added). Thus, Aronson requires a petitioner to demonstrate

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01958-JKS Document 81 Filed 02/24/06 Page 3 of 5
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

 But see Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1989) (defining test as requiring either 4

special circumstances or a high probability of success) (citing Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5

(1964)). Although the test in Land appears to be different because it requires either special

circumstances or a high probability of success, whereas Benson appears to require both prongs,

Land was not an en banc decision, and cannot overrule another panel. Possibly, Land’s use of

the word “or” was inadvertent. Therefore, Benson remains good law especially in light of

Aronson.

4

that his underlying claim raises substantial questions and that his case presents exceptional

circumstances.4

A number of cases interpreting the first test of the Aronson analysis have required

that petitioner's claims be more than substantial. See, e.g., Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702

(5th Cir. 1974) (per curiam) (bail should be granted to a military prisoner pending

post-conviction relief only when petitioner raises substantial constitutional claims upon which he

has a high probability of success and when extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist);

Glynn v. Donnelly, 470 F.2d 95, 98 (1st Cir. 1972) (court will not grant bail unless petitioner

presents not only a clear case on the law but a readily apparent case on the facts); see also

Richardson v. Wilhelm, 587 F. Supp. 24, 25 (D. Nev. 1984); Monroe v. State Court of Fulton

County, 560 F. Supp. 542, 545 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Courts have also narrowly construed the second test of the Aronson analysis;

namely, that petitioner show that his case presents exceptional circumstances justifying relief. 

See Calley, 496 F.2d at 702. Exceptional circumstances may be found and, in the court’s

discretion, warrant a petitioner’s release on bail where: (1) petitioner’s health is seriously

deteriorating while he is incarcerated, Woodcock v. Donnelly, 470 F.2d 93 (1st Cir. 1972) (per

curiam); Johnston v. Marsh, 227 F.2d 528 (3rd Cir. 1955); (2) there is an extraordinary delay in

the processing of a petition, Glynn, 470 F.2d at 95; and (3) the petitioner’s sentence would be

completed before meaningful collateral review could be had, Boyer v. City of Orlando, 402 F.2d

966 (5th Cir. 1968) (bail granted where court concluded petitioner should present claims to state

courts, despite state courts’ precedents denying relief for his claim, and feared petitioner’s

Case 2:02-cv-01958-JKS Document 81 Filed 02/24/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

sentence would run before exhaustion could be completed); see also Goodman v. Ault, 358 F.

Supp. 743 (N.D. Ga. 1973).

This court finds that petitioner has not made the showing of exceptional

circumstances that might justify admitting him to bail pending completion of this court’s review

of his habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, his further motions for bail will be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s January 28, 2005 motion for bail pending appellate review is

denied.

2. Petitioner’s April 4, 2005 motion for enlargement of time is construed as a

further motion for bail pending habeas review and, so construed, is denied.

3. Petitioner’s April 29, 2005 motion to lift the stay of this action is granted.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen this action.

5. Within twenty days from the date of this order, respondents shall file and serve

a response to petitioner’s April 29, 2005 motion to add six additional claims to this action. 

Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served not later than ten days thereafter.

6. Petitioner’s October 28, 2005 motion to file exhibits in support of motions for

bail is granted.

DATED: February 23, 2006. 

12

wolf1958.lftsty

Case 2:02-cv-01958-JKS Document 81 Filed 02/24/06 Page 5 of 5