Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cr-00448/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cr-00448-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Livia Lill
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LIVIA LILL, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 13-cr-00448-TEH 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING 

2255 PETITION 

 

On February 9, 2015, Petitioner Livia Lill filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2255, challenging her judgment and sentence by this Court. (Docket No. 98). Included in 

that filing, Petitioner made a motion for release pending the Court’s decision on her 

petition. On February 17, 2015, the Court ordered the United States to show cause for why 

Petitioner’s § 2255 petition should not be granted. (Docket No. 102). The Court recently 

received a letter from Petitioner inquiring into the status of her motion for release. (Docket 

No. 110). The Court now issues this Order in response, and hereby DENIES Petitioner’s 

motion for release pending the outcome of her § 2255 petition. 

A federal court has authority to release a state prisoner on recognizance or surety in 

the course of a habeas proceeding. See Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 507 (9th Cir. 

1987); Nickerson v. Roe, No. 98-04909-MHP, 2000 WL 33381022, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 

11, 2000). This authority derives from the power to issue the writ itself. Marino, 812 F.2d 

at 507. In the habeas context, bail is reserved for “extraordinary cases involving special 

circumstances or a high probability of success.” Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318, 318 (9th 

Cir. 1989); see also United States v. Mett, 41 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Given the “extraordinary” standard for release pending a § 2255 petition, the Court 

can identify nothing in the record or Petitioner’s arguments that would entitle her to release 

at the present time. As articulated in Benson v. California, there are thousands of prisoners 

who would have no difficulty drafting a petition for habeas corpus alleging substantial 

Case 3:13-cr-00448-TEH Document 111 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

violations of their constitutional rights. 328 F.2d 159, 162 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1964). Like the 

Court of Appeals in Benson, this Court does not propose to “open the door to the release of 

those thousands of prisoners on the basis of mere allegations in their petitions.” Id. The 

Court recognizes that Petitioner identifies hardships resulting from her incarceration. 

However, such hardships - financial, familial, and otherwise - are the common result of 

imprisonment. Such natural consequences of detention are not “special circumstances” 

that warrant extraordinary relief. Petitioner additionally claims that she is experiencing 

extreme stress, resulting in health issues, as a result of her incarceration. The stresses of 

incarceration, however, are also not grounds for release - especially where such health 

issues can be treated by the medical professionals at the Bureau of Prisons. 

Regarding the probability of Petitioner’s success, which must be “high” to warrant 

release, the Court notes that it has previously denied a request by Petitioner for release 

pending her appeal of the Court’s judgment, because she failed to raise a substantial 

question on appeal. (Docket No. 92). Petitioner must now meet an even higher burden 

during a collateral attack of her judgment. See Mett, 41 F.3d at 1282. Despite adding 

additional factual allegations in her habeas petition, and including a few supporting 

documents therein, her petition cannot fairly be described as holding a “high probability of 

success.” The Court has ordered the Government to respond to Petitioner’s allegations 

because the petition could not be summarily dismissed on its face; this does not, however, 

indicate the high probability of success necessary to secure immediate release. 

Because this is not an extraordinary case involving special circumstances or a high 

probability of success, Petitioner’s motion for release is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/03/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:13-cr-00448-TEH Document 111 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 2