Maddox v. McKee
ORDER denying 53 Petition for Appeal Personal Bond and/or Immediate Release filed by Keith Maddox Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KEITH MADDOX-EL, # 166273, Petitioner, v. KENNETH MCKEE, Respondent. __________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Pending before the Court is Petitioner's "Petition for Appeal Personal Bond and or Immediate Release" [Dkt. # 53], filed on November 2, 2010. The Court construes Petitioner's request as a motion for immediate release. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's motion will be denied. I Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody or release on bail pending disposition of his habeas petition. Petitioner's argument in favor of release on bail relies on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(c), which states that "[w]hile a decision ordering the release of a prisoner is under review, the prisoner mustunless 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 otherwisebe 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 Case Number: 07-11349 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
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. To receive bond pending a decision on the merits of a habeas petition, a petitioner must demonstrate 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." Id. 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). In this case, Petitioner's motion contains incoherent references to the Constitution, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Michigan Court Rules. Petitioner's claims do not demonstrate any exceptional circumstance which would merit immediate release on bond. Therefore, the Court will deny Petitioner's request for his immediate release from custody. II Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner's "Petition for Appeal Personal Bond and or Immediate Release" [Dkt. # 53] is DENIED. s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge Dated: March 2, 2011
PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on March 2, 2011 s/Tracy A. Jacobs TRACY A. JACOBS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?