(HC) Rodriguez v. Fisher
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se state prisoner's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction for bail pending the resolution of his habeas corpus petition. The court denied the motion, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a high probability of success on the merits or special circumstances warranting release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction for Bail Denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Roe v. Roe, 257 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001), which holds that bail pending habeas proceedings is reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success. The court found the petitioner failed to meet this high burden. The petitioner's arguments regarding equal protection and COVID-19 exposure were deemed insufficient to constitute 'special circumstances' or a 'high probability of success' under the strict standard required for state prisoners seeking bail in federal habeas proceedings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard from Ninth Circuit precedent (Roe and Land) and applies it to the petitioner's arguments. The court explicitly notes the high burden required and concludes the petitioner failed to meet it. While the order does not provide a detailed factual analysis of why the COVID-19 exposure or equal protection claims do not constitute 'special circumstances,' the conclusion is consistent with the strict standard applied in similar cases where general conditions of confinement or unproven constitutional claims are raised.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 21-cv-1443-MMA (LL)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 13 v. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 14 OFFICER FISHER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR 15 Defendant. BAIL 16 [Doc. No. 24] 17 18 On August 9, 2021, Pedro Rodriguez (“Petitioner”), preceding pro se, filed a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”). 20 Petitioner now moves for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction for 21 bail. Doc. No. 24. Because Petitioner seeks an order directing his release from custody 22 on bail, the Court construes it as a request for bail pending resolution of the habeas 23 corpus proceedings. 24 In his motion, Petitioner asserts that he “has a strong likelihood of success on the 25 merits . . . , equal protection of the law under Cal Const I § 32 et seq, and exigent 26 circumstances exist as the Petitioner is continually exposed to COVID-19.” Doc. No. 24 27 at 1. As one means of support, Petitioner argues that new law and certain court cases 28 | ||impact his sentence and eligibility for parole, thereby causing constitutional violations. 2 || See generally Petition at 16-21. 3 The Ninth Circuit has not decided whether district courts have the authority to 4 ||release a habeas corpus petitioner on bail pending habeas corpus proceedings resolution. 5 re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2001). However, the Ninth Circuit notes that, 6 || assuming a district court does have “the authority to release a state prisoner on bail 7 || pending resolution of habeas proceedings,” it is “reserved for extraordinary cases 8 involving special circumstances or a high probability of success.” Jd.; Land v. Deeds, 9 F.2d 318, 318 (9th Cir. 1989). 10 Regardless of the Court’s authority, Petitioner does not satisfy either of the Ninth 11 || Circuit’s factors. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, the Court finds Petitioner fails 12 meet the high burden of demonstrating a high probability of success or special 13 || circumstances warranting bail. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: December 3, 2021 16 Miku ln-(diskle 17 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28