Mumin v. Gage

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Bail (Filing No. 13 ) is denied. Petitioner's Request to Stay Proceedings (Filing No. 15 ) is denied. Petitioner's Request for Counsel (Filing No. 15 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DUKHAN MUMIN,
Petitioner,
V.
BRIAN GAGE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:16CV3033

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

On March 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing
No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging various violations of his constitutional
rights. On initial review, the court preliminarily determined that Petitioner’s claims
are potentially cognizable in federal court, and set an initial progression schedule in
this case. (Filing No. 10.)
On May 20, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that this court release
him on bail pending a final decision in this matter. Federal district courts have the
inherent power to grant state prisoners bail during the pendency of a federal habeas
corpus proceeding. See Martin v. Solem, 801 F.2d 324, 329-330 (8th Cir. 1986).
However, such power can be exercised only in exceptional cases and where special
circumstances exist. Id. Petitioner argues that he should be released on bail because
his conviction was obtained through the use of an inadmissible report and there was
insufficient evidence to convict him. These conclusory statements do not constitute
exceptional circumstances warranting bail. Accordingly, the request for bail will be
denied.
On May 23, 2016, Petitioner filed a request to stay proceedings in this matter
because he filed a supplement to his habeas petition on May 20, 2016. (Filing Nos.
14, 15.) The motion also makes several legal arguments pertaining to the merits of
his habeas petition and seeks the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner’s request that these proceedings be stayed will be denied. Petitioner
has not set forth any grounds for delaying progression of this case, nor has Petitioner
identified any reason necessitating an evidentiary hearing. Respondent is, however,
directed to take note of the supplement to Petitioner’s petition at the time Respondent
files his response to the habeas petition.
Moreover, Petitioner will not be appointed counsel at this time. As Petitioner
was previously informed, there is no constitutional right to counsel in habeas
proceedings. McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997). Rather,
appointment of counsel is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Id. The court
has carefully reviewed the record and finds there is no need for the appointment of
counsel at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

Petitioner’s Motion for Bail (Filing No. 13) is denied.

2.

Petitioner’s Request to Stay Proceedings (Filing No. 15) is denied.

3.

Petitioner’s Request for Counsel (Filing No. 15) is denied without
prejudice to reassertion.

DATED this 1st day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2