Brooks v. United States of America

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING 33 PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING OUTCOME OF § 2255 MOTION. Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 11/23/16. (Breen, J.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
ISAAC H. BROOKS, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 14-1250

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING OUTCOME OF
§ 2255 MOTION
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court in this case brought by the pro se Petitioner, Isaac H. Brooks, Jr.,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is his motion for release pending ruling on the petition. (Docket
Entry (“D.E.”) 33.) To receive bail pending the outcome of a habeas petition, “prisoners must be
able to show not only a substantial claim of law based on the facts surrounding the petition but
also the existence of some circumstance making the motion for bail exceptional and deserving of
special treatment in the interests of justice.” Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990)
(citing Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964)) (internal alterations & quotation marks omitted);
see also Jackson v. United States, No. 3:02-CR-12-RLJ-HBG-1, 2016 WL 6106394, at *2 (E.D.
Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016) (same). “Because the case for bail pending resolution of a post-conviction
proceeding is weaker than the case for bail pending appeal, applicants are required to make a
greater-than-normal showing of special reasons for admission to bail.” Cureton v. United States,
Nos. 3:03-CR-116-TWP-HBG-1, 3:16-CV-298-TWP, 2016 WL 6106395, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Oct.
19, 2016) (internal alterations, citation & quotation marks omitted). This is a difficult standard

that few habeas petitioners are able to meet. Wingo v. United States, 341 F. App’x 132, 135 (6th
Cir. 2009).
In his motion, Brooks makes no assertion of a substantial claim of law or exceptional
circumstances. His contention that he is neither violent nor a flight risk is insufficient to warrant
relief. See Tetramariner v. United States, Nos. 91-5224, 91-5324, 1991 WL 142629, at *1 (6th
Cir. 1991) (petitioner’s claims that he should be released pending disposition of his § 2255
motion because he did not pose a threat to society or a risk of flight were not adequate to support
release). The motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of November 2016.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2