Beauclair v. Goddard et al

Filing 34

ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion 32 for bail is denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 11/6/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Danny E. Beauclair by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DANNY E. BEAUCLAIR,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 10-3128-SAC

JOHNNIE GADDARD, et al.,
Respondents.

O R D E R
Petitioner proceeds pro se in this action seeking habeas corpus
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Before the court is petitioner’s

motion for bail pursuant to the Bail Reform Act of 1984.1

Petitioner

contends he is entitled to release pending resolution of his habeas
corpus petition because the record, which now includes respondents’
answer and petitioner’s traverse, clearly establishes that he is
entitled to relief on the merits of his claims.

The court disagrees.

A federal district court has inherent power to release a state
prisoner on bond, pending a hearing and a decision on a petition for
habeas corpus.

Pfaff v. Wells, 648 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir.1981).

That power derives from the court’s habeas corpus authority to issue
a writ, and not from the Bail Reform Act.

Wolfe v. Clarke, 819

F.Supp.2d 574 (E.D.Va.2011)(citing Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499,
1

Petitioner also cites 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b), a provision authorizing the release
under limited circumstances of a defendant who has filed an appeal from a federal
conviction and sentence. Petitioner’s reliance on this federal statute is
misplaced, as petitioner is proceeding in federal habeas corpus to collaterally
challenge his state court conviction and sentence.

507 (9th Cir.1987)).2

See also Fed.R.App.23 (allowing for the release

of a state prisoner who is appealing a federal district court’s habeas
corpus decision).

To grant such relief, however, a habeas inmate must

show exceptional circumstances and demonstrate a clear case on the
merits of the habeas petition.

Id. at 693; Johnson v. Nelson, 877

F.Supp. 569, 570 (D.Kan.1995).
The court finds petitioner has not met this demanding burden.
Petitioner reasserts specific grounds in his petition, but fails to
demonstrate a high probability of success on any substantial claim
of constitutional deprivation.

Nor does petitioner identify any

exceptional circumstance, other than his conclusory claim of actual
innocence, to warrant his release on bond pending the court’s decision
on petitioner’s habeas petition.

Accordingly, the court denies

petitioner’s motion for bail.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for bail (doc.
32) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 6th day of November 2012 at Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

2
Here, petitioner’s habeas petition is currently before the court for a
decision on the merits, which factually distinguishes the instant case from Wolfe
and Marino wherein petitioners sought bail pending resolution of their appeal from
the district court’s disposition of their habeas petition. See In re Roe, 257 F.2d
1077 (9th Cir.2001)(disavowing Marino’s holding of inherent power if habeas petition
is pending disposition on the merits by the district court on the merits).