Opinion
Case No. 1:14-cv-429
02-17-2015
DANIEL C. PIPPEN, Petitioner. v. WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
Barrett, J.
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, a prisoner in state custody at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution in Chillicothe, Ohio, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the petition, petitioner challenges his conviction for drug offenses and 27-year sentence imposed by the Scioto County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas in January 2011. (See Doc. 4). He asserts as the sole ground for relief that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. (Id., at PAGEID#: 35). This matter is before the Court on petitioner's motion for release on bail (Doc. 9), which is opposed by the respondent. (See Doc. 10). Also pending before the Court are: petitioner's motion for extension of time in which to tile a reply to respondent's brief in opposition to his bail motion (Doc. 15); and petitioner's motion to amend the petition to include affidavits from his co-defendants as support for his claim for relief (Doc. 16).
Petitioner's motion to amend the petition (Doc. 16), which has not been opposed by respondent, is GRANTED. Although it appears that the affidavits to be included as support for petitioner's claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence may not have been part of the state-court record, the exhibits shall remain in the record before this Court even though they ultimately may not be subject to consideration under applicable standards governing federal habeas review of state convictions.
Petitioner's motion for extension of time in which to file a reply to respondent's brief in opposition to his bail motion (Doc. 15) is also GRANTED. Petitioner's reply brief, which was filed on September 15, 2014, has been made part of the record before the Court. (See Doc. 17).
However, upon consideration of petitioner's motion for bail and additional pleadings filed by respondent and petitioner addressing the bail issue (see Docs. 10, 17), the undersigned RECOMMENDS that petitioner's motion for bail (Doc. 9) be DENIED. Although a federal court has authority to grant bail in a habeas corpus action pending a decision on the merits of the petition, see Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 78-79 (6th Cir. 1990), release of a state prisoner pending consideration of his federal habeas petition "is reserved for the extraordinary case." Lordi v. Ishee, 22 F. App'x 585, 586 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993)). The Sixth Circuit has explained that "[s]ince 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." Lee, 989 F.2d at 871. Therefore, in order to obtain release on bail pending a decision on the merits, the petitioner must 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.'" Id. (quoting Dotson, 900 F.2d at 79, in turn quoting Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5, 13 L.Ed.2d 6 (1964) (Douglas, J., in chambers)); see also Nash v. Eberlin, 437 F.3d 519, 526 n.10 (6th Cir. 2006); Greenup v. Snyder, 57 F. App'x 620, 621 (6th Cir. 2003).
In this federal habeas proceeding, the Court is bound by two layers of deference in evaluating the merits of petitioner's sufficiency-of-evidence claim. See, e.g., Brown v. Konteh, 567 F.3d 191, 205 (6th Cir. 2009); Davis v. Lafler, 658 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 2011); Anderson v. Trombley, 451 F. App'x 469, 474-75 (6th Cir. 2011). Ultimately, relief may be granted only if petitioner shows that the state court's ruling in the State's favor was "so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." See Harrington v. Richer, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786-87 (2011). Given the difficulty of meeting this standard, petitioner has not demonstrated a substantial claim of law. Cf. Garnett v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst., No. 2:11cv765, 2012 WL 222931, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2012).
In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner is able to present a "meritorious challenge" to his conviction, he has not demonstrated that exceptional or unusual circumstances exist in his case, which warrant his release on bail during the pendency of this action. Cf. Henderson v. Bunting, No. 1:14cv2557, 2015 WL 196058, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2015) (in denying motion to set bond in § 2254 habeas case, the court reasoned that even if the petitioner "were able to demonstrate that his habeas claim was substantial, he would still have to show some exceptional circumstance 'deserving of special treatment'"); Borders v. United States, Civ. Act. No. 2:09cv616, Crim. Act. No. 2:07cr86, 2010 WL 1817978, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2010) (in denying bail in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding after rejecting the petitioner's argument that lack of contact with his son qualified as an "exceptional circumstance," the court noted that even a "meritorious challenge" to the petitioner's underlying convictions was "not alone sufficient to warrant the extraordinary remedy of release on bail"); see also Blocksom v. Klee, No. 11-cv-14859, 2015 WL 300261, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2015) (in denying bail in a § 2254 habeas case, the court pointed out that although neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth Circuit have "provided definitive guidance for determining whether a petitioner's 'circumstances' are so 'exceptional' to justify release pending review of his habeas claims," lower courts have suggested that the finding of "exceptional circumstances" has been limited to cases where the prisoner is "gravely ill" or serving a short sentence, or "possibly" where there has been "'extraordinary delay' in processing the habeas petition").
Accordingly, in sum, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's motion for bail (Doc. 9) be DENIED.
In his reply to respondent's opposition memorandum, petitioner has also suggested the possibility of staying ruling on the motion for bail until the record is complete and the Court has ruled on his claim for relief. (See Doc. 17). However, if this Court ultimately determines that petitioner's claim has merit and that an unconditional writ of habeas corpus should issue, petitioner can renew his request for bail at that time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Petitioner's motion to amend the petition to include affidavits in support of his ground for relief (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.
2. Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a reply to respondent's brief in opposition to petitioner's motion for bail (Doc. 15) is GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
Petitioner's motion for bail (Doc. 9) be DENIED. Date: 2/17/15
/s/_________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). cbc