Maslonka v. Hoffner

Filing 81

OPINION AND ORDER Denying Emergency Motion for Bond 77 . Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (McColley, N)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NICHOLAS PAUL MASLONKA,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-14110
HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
BONITA HOFFNER,

Respondent.
____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE EMERGENCY
MOTION FOR BOND (ECF No. 77)
This Court granted petitioner a conditional writ of habeas corpus, on
the ground that petitioner was denied the effective assistance of trial
counsel when his attorney failed to appear at critical stages in the criminal
proceedings. Maslonka v. Hoffner, No. 2:13-CV-14110, 2017 WL 2666103
(E.D. Mich. June 21, 2017).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed this
Court’s decision and remanded the matter to this Court to consider
petitioner’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims. Maslonka v.
Hoffner, 900 F.3d 269, 273 (6th Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub nom. Maslonka
v. Nagy, 139 S. Ct. 2664 (2019).

1

Petitioner has filed an emergency motion for bond. For the reasons
that follow, the motion for bond is DENIED.
In order 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 and exceptional circumstances justifying special treatment in the
interest of justice. Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993)(quoting
Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990)); see also Nash v. Eberlin,
437 F.3d 519, 526, n. 10 (6th Cir. 2006). There are few occasions where a
habeas petitioner meets this standard. Dotson, 900 F.2d at 79. Federal
courts may grant bond when granting the writ. See Sizemore v. District
Court, 735 F.2d 204, 208 (6th Cir. 1984). By implication, a federal court
should not grant bond under other circumstances. Petitioner has failed to
establish at this time that he would prevail on the merits on his remaining
claims on remand; he is not entitled to release on bond. See e.g. Greenup
v. Snyder, 57 F. App’x 620, 621-22 (6th Cir. 2003). This matter can be
reconsidered upon receipt of the supplemental pleadings.
Based on the foregoing, the Emergency Motion for Bond (ECF No.
77) is DENIED.
Dated: August 27, 2020

__s/Arthur J. Tarnow_________
HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2