United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
L. LITKOVITZ, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
an inmate at the Ohio State Penitentiary, in Youngstown,
Ohio, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2004
Hamilton County, Ohio, convictions for aggravated murder and
having weapons while under disability. (Doc. 3). This matter
is before the Court on petitioner's motions for expedited
review (Docs. 4 & 6) and for bail pending determination
of his habeas proceeding (Doc. 8), petitioner's affidavit
in support of his motions for bail and expedited review (Doc.
13), respondent's responses in opposition to the motions
(Docs. 7 & 9), and petitioner's replies in support of
the motions (Docs. 10&11).
motions for expedited review (Docs. 4 & 6) are
DENIED. On April 2, 2018, the undersigned
issued an Order for Answer, directing respondent to file an
answer conforming to the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases within sixty days of the date of
filing the Order. (Doc. 2). Petitioner may, not later than
twenty-one days after the answer is filed, file and serve a
reply to the answer. (See id.). Once the answer,
relevant state-court record, and any reply by petitioner have
been filed, the Court will address the petition as
expeditiously as possible. Petitioner has not established an
impending event warranting a change to that schedule. See
Floyd v. Burt, No. 06-cv-10357, 2007 WL 295028, at *1
(E.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2007) (denying the petitioner's
motion for expedited review "as unnecessary
surplusage" and explaining that "[t]he court
endeavors to adjudicate all matters, including habeas corpus
petitions, in a timely manner as justice ordinarily requires
and as the pending caseload allows").
motion for bail (Doc. 8) is DENIED. A federal court has
authority to grant bail to a petitioner in a habeas corpus
action pending a decision on the merits of the petition.
Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 78-79 (6th Cir. 1990).
However, in order to be admitted to bail in such a case,
petitioner must show a substantial claim of law based on the
facts surrounding the petition, and either a strong
probability of success on the merits or the existence of some
exceptional circumstances deserving of special treatment in
the interest of justice. Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3,
5 (1964); Dotson, 900 F.2d at 79. Release of a state
prisoner pending consideration of the habeas corpus petition
is reserved for the extraordinary case. See Lee v.
Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993). "Since a
habeas petitioner is appealing a presumptively valid state
conviction, both principles of comity and common sense
dictate that it will indeed be the very unusual case where a
habeas petitioner is admitted to bail prior to a decision on
the merits in the habeas case." Id.
"Before, and during, trial, the accused enjoys a
presumption of innocence, and bail is normally granted."
Glynn v. Donnelly, 470 F.2d 95, 98 (1st Cir. 1972).
However, "the presumption fades upon conviction, "
with the State "acquiring] a substantial interest in
executing its judgment." Id. "[T]his
combination of factors dictates a formidable barrier for
those who seek interim release while they pursue their
collateral remedies." Id. Therefore, in the
absence of exceptional circumstances, courts will not grant
bail prior to a final decision on the merits unless the
petitioner demonstrates not merely a clear case on the law,
but also a clear and readily evident case on the facts. Even
where the Court concludes that a petition raises a
substantial question of law, "[m]erely to find that
there is a substantial question is far from enough."
Lee, 989 F.2d at 871 (quoting Glynn, 470
F.2d at 98).
has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify his
release on bail pending a decision on the merits of the
petition. In support of his request, petitioner relies on the
merits of his petition, which have yet to be established, and
his status as a pauper, (See Doc. 8, at PageID
79-80). Petitioner also seems to assert that he is entitled
to relief based on an alleged incident on April 30, 2018,
where mace or pepper spray was released in his cell block,
causing him to cough and sweat and his nose to run.
(See Doc. 13, at PageID 104-05). These reasons do
not satisfy the standard set forth in Dotson and are
not sufficiently compelling to offset the presumption created
by the judicial determination herein.
in sum, petitioner's motions for expedited review (Docs.
4 & 6) and his motion for bail (Doc. 8) are DENIED.
Petitioner seeks "to
expedite habeas review of [his] double jeopardy claims."
(See Doc. 4, at PageID 53). However, he has not
established that he is facing a second trial that could
justify expedited ...