UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SEANDERYL CRAWFORD, # 560561,

Petitioner,

 v. Case Number: 08-14569

Honorable Marianne O. Battani

CINDI CURTIN,

Respondent,

_____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS

FOR RELEASE ON BAIL AND FOR A GINTHER HEARING

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Seanderyl Crawford is a

state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Newberry Correctional Facility in Newberry,

Michigan. He filed this pro se habeas petition challenging his 2005 convictions for (1)

impersonating a peace officer, MICH.COMP.LAWS § 750.2153, (2) three counts of armed robbery,

MICH.COMP.LAWS § 750.529, (3) felonious assault, MICH.COMP.LAWS § 750.82, (4) first-degree

home invasion, MICH.COMP.LAWS § 750.110(a)(2), and (5) felony firearm, MICH.COMP.LAWS §

750.227(b)(a), which were imposed following a bench trial in Wayne County Circuit Court. On

January 4, 2006, Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent terms of (1) two to four years in prison

for the impersonating conviction, (2) fourteen to thirty years in prison for each of the armedrobbery convictions, (3) two to four years in prison for the felonious-assault conviction, (4) ten

to twenty years in prison for the first-degree-home-invasion conviction, and (5) the mandatory

two years in prison for the felony-firearm conviction, to be served consecutively to the other

sentences. 

2:08-cv-14569-MOB-SDP Doc # 18 Filed 02/03/11 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 508
1

People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436, 212 N.W.2d 922 (Mich.1973).

2

Pending before the Court are the following motions filed by Petitioner on January 24,

2011: “Motion for Release on Bail” [dkt. # 16] and “Motion for a New Trial or Ginther”1

 hearing

[dkt. # 17]. For the reasons stated, the Court denies the motions.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Release on Bail

Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody or release on bail pending disposition of

his habeas petition. Petitioner relies on the Eighth Amendment and People v. Giacalone, 16

Mich.App. 352, 167 N.W.2d 871 (1969) for support. He asserts that he will not flee if released,

that he is not a danger to the community, that substantial questions of law and fact have been

presented on appeal, and that his release will not present a risk to the proper administration of

justice.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(c) provides:

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

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

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

released on personal recognizance, with or without surety.

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. This Court has not granted habeas relief in this

case. Therefore, Rule 23(c) is inapplicable to Petitioner’s case.

2:08-cv-14569-MOB-SDP Doc # 18 Filed 02/03/11 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 509
3

To receive bond pending a decision on the merits of a habeas 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 bail] exceptional and deserving of special treatment

in the interests of justice.” Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990) (citing Aronson v.

May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964)). “There will be few occasions where a prisoner will meet this

standard.” Dotson, 900 F.2d at 79. Because a habeas petitioner “is appealing a presumptively

valid state conviction . . . 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).

Applying the two-prong test in Dotson, this Court finds neither a substantial claim on the

merits of the petition nor exceptional circumstances deserving special treatment in the interest of

justice. Petitioner’s motion is perfunctory and states no substantial basis for the extraordinary

relief he seeks. Relief, therefore, must await review of the state-court record. Accordingly, the

Court denies Petitioner’s request for his immediate release from custody.

B. Motion for Ginther Hearing

Petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing on trial counsel’s representation. This is

Petitioner’s second request for such a hearing.

A federal district court generally is prohibited from granting an evidentiary hearing if the

habeas petitioner failed to develop the factual basis for his or her claims in state courts. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). “In cases where an applicant for federal habeas relief is not barred from

obtaining an evidentiary hearing by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) (2), the decision to grant such a hearing

rests in the discretion of the district court.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 468 (2007).

2:08-cv-14569-MOB-SDP Doc # 18 Filed 02/03/11 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 510
4

“Generally, a habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in federal court if the petition

‘alleges sufficient grounds for release, relevant facts are in dispute, and the state courts did not

hold a full and fair evidentiary hearing.’” Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 459 (6th Cir. 2001)

(quoting Wilson v. Kemna, 12 F.3d 145, 146 (8th Cir. 1994)). An evidentiary hearing is not

required where the record is complete or if the petition raises only legal claims that can be

resolved without the taking of additional evidence. Ellis v. Lynaugh, 873 F.2d 830, 840 (5th Cir.

1989); United States v. Sanders, 3 F. Supp. 2d 554, 560 (M.D. Pa. 1998).

Although relevant facts may be in dispute, the Court is unable to determine at this time

whether Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is

denied without prejudice. The Court will reconsider its ruling, if necessary, after it reviews the

state-court record. It is not necessary for Petitioner to renew his motion or to file another motion

regarding this issue.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for release on bail [dkt. # 16] is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and/or

new trial is also DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 3, 2011

2:08-cv-14569-MOB-SDP Doc # 18 Filed 02/03/11 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 511
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the above date a copy of this Order was served upon the

Petitioner via ordinary U.S. Mail, and counsel for the respondent electronically.

s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14569-MOB-SDP Doc # 18 Filed 02/03/11 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 512