Rhodes v. Dobbs

Filing 26

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

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