Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01899-MSK-KLM.
February 13, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Applicant's Motion for Setting of Bond [Docket No. 30; Filed January 3, 2008] ("Motion No. 30"), and Applicant's Motion for Disposition [Docket No. 37; Filed February 11, 2008] ("Motion No. 37").
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion No. 30 is DENIED. While the Court recognizes its authority to recommend that Applicant be released on bond pending a determination of his habeas petition, such a recommendation is only justified in "exceptional circumstances." Pfaff v. Wells, 648 F.2d 689, 693 (10th Cir. 1981); see Edwards v. Oklahoma, 412 F. Supp. 556, 559-60 (W.D. Okl. 1976) (noting that exceptional circumstances are akin to an emergency health issue); see also 16A Fed. Proc. (L. Ed.) § 41:364 (2007). Although Applicant has attempted to prove his actual innocence of the crime for which he was convicted [Docket No. 35], the Court is not persuaded that the evidence and argument presented by Applicant constitutes a "demonstration of a clear case on the merits of the habeas petition." Pfaff, 648 F.2d at 693; cf. Benson v. California, 328 F.2d 159, 162 (9 th Cir. 1964) (holding that even a "clear case for [Applicant's] release" would not be enough to justify bail pending a determination on the habeas petition).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion No. 37 is DENIED. To the extent that Applicant requests that the Court rule on the merits of his habeas petition and grant him the relief he seeks therein, as the Court noted in its Order of October 12, 2007 [Docket No. 28], the Court is aware of Applicant's pending matter and will the resolve it on the merits in due course.