UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDRE DUVOR STRINGER,

 Petitioner,

Civil Action 2:14-CV-13874

v. HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

JEFFREY WOODS,

 

Respondent,

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELEASE ON

CONDITIONAL PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE [#8]

On October 7, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Respondent filed a Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Petition

and the Rule 5 materials on April 14, 2015. 

Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Release on Conditional Personal

Cognizance, filed on December 2, 2014. Petitioner seeks release on bond pending

disposition of his Petition. 

Petitioner relies on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(c) in support of his

request for release on bond pending resolution of his Petition. Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 23(c) states:

(c) Release Pending Review of Decision Ordering Release. While a

decision ordering the release of a prisoner is under review, the prisoner

must–unless the court or judge rendering decision, or the court of appeals, or

the Supreme Court, or a judge or justice of either court orders otherwise–be

1

2:14-cv-13874-GAD-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 05/27/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1054
released on personal recognizance, with or without surety. 

Fed. R. App. P. 23(c). The United States Supreme Court has held that this “rule undoubtedly

creates a presumption of release from custody in such cases.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S.

770, 774 (1987). Rule 23(c) addresses situations where a party appeals a district court’s

decision granting habeas relief and ordering a petitioner’s release. See Sizemore v. District

Court, 735 F.2d 204, 208 (6th Cir. 1984). Here, because the Court has not granted habeas

relief, Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is inapplicable. 

To receive bond pending a decision on the merits of a habeas corpus petition, a

petitioner must show a substantial claim of law based on the facts surrounding the petition

and the existence of “some circumstance making [the motion for bond] exceptional and

deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice.” Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79

(6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 13 L. Ed. 2d 6 (1964)). “There will

be few occasions where a prisoner will meet this standard.” Dotson, 900 F.2d at 79. Since

a habeas petitioner is appealing a presumptively valid state conviction, both principles of

comity and common sense dictate that it will indeed be the very unusual case where a habeas

petitioner is admitted to bail prior to a decision on the merits in the habeas case.” Lee v.

Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993). 

Based on review of the Petition, the Court cannot conclude it shows any substantial

claim of law based on the facts. Nor is the Court persuaded that any extraordinary and

exceptional circumstances exist which merit immediate release on bond. Thus, Petitioner has

failed to demonstrate release pending review of his Petition is warranted and deserving of

2

2:14-cv-13874-GAD-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 05/27/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1055
special treatment in the interests of justice. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Release on

Conditional Personal Cognizance [#8] is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

/s/Gershwin A Drain 

HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

Dated: May 27, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record and 

to Andre Stringer, 220557 at the Chippewa Correctional Facility, 

4269 W. M-80, Kincheloe, MI 49784 on

May 27, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Tanya Bankston

Deputy Clerk

3

2:14-cv-13874-GAD-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 05/27/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1056