Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02477/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02477-0/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

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Aaron R. Shreeve, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2477-PHX-MHM (MHB)

ORDER

Before the Court are Petitioner’s motion for conditional release (Doc. #10) and

Respondents’ motion to file a supplemental response to that motion (Doc. #15). The Court

will deny both motions.

I. Background

Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction and sentence

of 8-years-imprisonment for kidnaping (Doc. #10). In his petition, Petitioner alleged that the

aggravated sentence for kidnaping violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), because it was based on facts not admitted by

him in the plea or determined by a jury. The Court ordered the State to respond to the

petition, and, after granting an extension, directed the Answer to be filed by April 17, 2008

(Doc. ##3, 9). 

On February 27, 2008, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Take Judicial Notice and Make

Finding of Fact for Conditional Release of Petitioner from State Custody” (Doc. #10). He

requested that, due to “impairment of [his] substantive rights,” the Court grant him a

Case 2:07-cv-02477-MHM Document 19 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 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 1

In support of his motion, Petitioner cited to exhibits attached to his § 2254 petition

(see Doc. #10 at 5).

- 2 -

conditional release from the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) (id. at 2). Petitioner

contended that his lawful, presumptive, 5-year sentence expired on February 27, 2008; thus,

conditional release on his own recognizance pending his habeas proceedings is now

warranted (id. at 3-4, 8-9). He asked the Court to make factual findings on the merits of his

habeas claim as set forth in his § 2254 petition and his pending motion (id. at 2).1

 

Respondents opposed Petitioner’s motion on the grounds that (1) this request for relief

comes before they have had the chance to file their Answer with its affirmative defenses or

address the petition on its merits and (2) there is no case authority, Rules of Civil Procedure,

or Rules Governing § 2254 Cases that provide for such relief (Doc. #11). Respondents

requested that consideration of the motion be stayed until an Answer could be prepared.

Respondents then filed a “Motion to File a Supplemental Response” (Doc. #15),

seeking to supplement their response after review of the record and filing of their Answer,

which was filed simultaneously on April 17, 2008 (Doc. #14).

II. Preliminary Injunctive Relief 

Petitioner seeks injunctive relief and, therefore, must demonstrate “(1) a strong

likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to [him] if

preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring [him], and (4)

advancement of public interest (in certain cases).” Beardslee v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 1064,

1067 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Alternatively, Petitioner “must show either (1) a

likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) the

existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in

[Petitioner’s] favor.” Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2005)

(citations omitted). 

Petitioner has failed to meet either standard for injunctive relief. He does not

demonstrate a likelihood of success nor does he present serious questions going to the merits.

As to the balance of hardships, he merely asserts that he is the only one prejudiced by

Case 2:07-cv-02477-MHM Document 19 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

continued confinement (Doc. #10 at 9). But even if Petitioner were successful on his

petition, he would only be constitutionally entitled to re-sentencing. Regardless, it is not

plain that the merits of Petitioner’s claims are so strong as to warrant either expedited

adjudication or immediate relief from his current detention. See In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077,

1081 (9th Cir. 2001) (declining to resolve issue of whether a district court has the authority

to release a prisoner pending resolution of a habeas case, but holding that if such authority

does exist, it can only be exercised in an “extraordinary case involving special

circumstances”).

Finally, given that Petitioner’s motion requests the same relief that he seeks in his

pending § 2254 petition, a ruling at this stage—before consideration of the Answer—would

be premature. Petitioner’s motion for conditional release will therefore be denied. 

Because Petitioner fails to make any showing for injunctive relief, the Court need not

consider Respondents’ supplemental response, and their “Motion to File Supplemental

Response” (Doc. #15) will be denied as moot.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s “Motion to Take Judicial Notice and Make Finding of Fact for

Conditional Release of Petitioner From State Custody” (Doc. #10) is denied.

(2) Respondents’ “Motion to File Supplemental Response” (Doc. #15) is denied as

moot.

DATED this 22nd day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02477-MHM Document 19 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 3