Pouncy v. Palmer

Filing 346

ORDER Denying 344 Emergency Motion for Bond. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Case 2:13-cv-14695-MFL-LJM ECF No. 346 filed 08/31/20

PageID.13230

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
OMAR RASHAD POUNCY,
Petitioner,
Case No. 13-cv-14695
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CARMEN D. PALMER,

Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR BOND (ECF No. 344)
Petitioner Omar Pouncy has filed an Emergency Motion for Bond pending
final review of his habeas petition. The Court set out in an earlier order in this case
the standard that a habeas petitioner seeking bond must meet (see Order, ECF No.
307), and the Court incorporates its prior order by this reference. The Court is still
not convinced that Pouncy has demonstrated extraordinary circumstances
warranting his release on bond at this point. While there have been recent cases of
COVID-19 detected at the institution in which Pouncy is incarcerated, Pouncy has
not shown that he has any of the risk factors that would place him at significant risk
for serious or life-threatening consequences from contracting the virus. Nor has he
presented evidence that the infected inmates at his facility are housed in such close
proximity to him that he is unable to socially distance from them. The Court also
notes that the Michigan Department of Corrections has increased its testing protocols
1

Case 2:13-cv-14695-MFL-LJM ECF No. 346 filed 08/31/20

PageID.13231

Page 2 of 3

and implemented a comprehensive COVID-19 mitigation strategy. (See
https://medium.com/@MichiganDOC/mdoc-takes-steps-to-prevent-spread-ofcoronavirus-covid-19-250f43144337.)
Moreover, this case stands in sharp contrast to the decision relied upon by
Pouncy in which another Judge of this Court granted bond to a habeas petitioner
whose petition was pending. See Clark v. Hoffner, 2020 WL 1703870 (E.D.Mich.,
April 8, 2020). In that case, the petitioner presented compelling evidence of actual
innocence, and the state prosecuting attorney informed the Court that she would
recommend “either complete exoneration or a new trial” for the petitioner. Id. at
*4. These circumstances are not present here. Furthermore, the petitioner in Clark
“abided by all of the conditions of bond” while previously on bond, see id. at *5,
and Pouncy, in contrast, did not do so when previously released on bond. Clark does
not support Pouncy’s request for bond here.
For all of these reasons, Pouncy’s motion for bond is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2020

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 2:13-cv-14695-MFL-LJM ECF No. 346 filed 08/31/20

PageID.13232

Page 3 of 3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on August 31, 2020, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3