Curtis v. Ryan et al

Filing 28

ORDER the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Petitioner's Motion for Release Pending Appeal and Motion to Amend the Motion for Release Pending Appeal. Petitioner's Motion for Release Pending Appeal and Motion to Amend the Motion for Release Pending Appeal 24 and 26 are denied. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 2/12/13.(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Kurzie Lee Curtis,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________ )

CV 12-838-PHX-PGR (DKD)
ORDER

Before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion for Release Pending Appeal and Motion to
Amend the Motion for Release Pending Appeal. (Docs. 24, 26.)
On April 23, 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

17
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1) He filed an amended petition on July 27, 2012. (Doc. 12.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Petitioner challenges his sentence and raises claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel.1 In their answer, Respondents argue that the petition is untimely—by 15 years—and
that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. (Doc. 18.)
Petitioner now seeks to be released from prison pending the resolution of his habeas
proceeding. It is unclear whether this Court has the authority to release a state prisoner. See
In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2001). However, even if the Court does have

25
26
27
28

1

In 1987, following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery, armed
burglary, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and unlawful flight. (See Doc. 18 at 1–2,
6.) He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years on
the armed robbery, armed burglary, and aggravated assault convictions and to a 2.5-year
prison term on the unlawful flight conviction. (Id. at 6.)

1

such authority, release is “reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances

2

or a high probably of success.” Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318, 318 (9th Cir.1989); see In re

3

Roe, 257 F.3d at 1080. Under this standard, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled

4

to release.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

7

(1)

The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Petitioner’s Motion

8

for Release Pending Appeal and Motion to Amend the Motion for Release Pending Appeal.

9

(Docs. 24, 26.)

10
11
12

(2)

Petitioner’s Motion for Release Pending Appeal and Motion to Amend the

Motion for Release Pending Appeal. (Docs. 24, 26) are denied.
DATED this 12th day of February, 2013.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-