Rhodes v. Dobbs

Filing 26

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 9/4/2020. (lbak)

Download PDF
1:20-cv-01725-JFA-SVH Date Filed 09/04/20 Entry Number 26 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Clarence L. Rhodes, Petitioner, vs. Warden Bryan K. Dobbs, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 1:20-1725-JFA-SVH ORDER Clarence L. Rhodes (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.). This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s denial of his motion for bond and expedited review. [ECF No. 22]. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s motion is denied. Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are appropriately granted only in narrow circumstances: (1) the discovery of new evidence, (2) an intervening development or change in the controlling law, or (3) the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. American Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2003). Petitioner has not 1:20-cv-01725-JFA-SVH Date Filed 09/04/20 Entry Number 26 Page 2 of 2 identified any of the narrow circumstances appropriate for granting a motion to reconsider. Instead, Petitioner argues he has met the standard in United States v. Eliely, 276 F. App’x 270, (4th Cir. 2008), because he has shown substantial constitutional claims on which he has a high probability of success, and exceptional circumstances making a grant of bail necessary for the habeas remedy to be effective. The court disagrees. Although Plaintiff relies on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Gary, the Fourth Circuit has yet to issue the mandate in Gary. In addition, the court is not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that his race (African American) and age (over 40) place him at such a high risk for contracting COVID-19 that it constitutes exceptional circumstances making a grant of bail necessary. [ECF No. 22]. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 4, 2020 Columbia, South Carolina Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?