Opinion
Case No. 1:11CV00133 ERW
11-18-2011
MUSTAFA REDZIC, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Movant Mustafa Redzic's Motion for Bail Pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion. [ECF No. 2].
Movant was convicted of the federal criminal offenses of bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy, and is currently serving his sentence in federal prison. See United States v. Redzic, 627 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2010). Movant has filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge his conviction and sentence. [ECF No. 1]. That Motion is currently pending before the Court. Movant also filed the instant Motion for Bail, seeking to be released from prison on bail pending the disposition of his § 2255 Motion. [ECF No. 2]. In support, Movant states that he satisfies the standards set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b), a statute that is entitled "Release or detention pending appeal by the defendant." The problem with Movant's reliance upon § 1343(b), however, is that it applies to defendants who are challenging their conviction or sentence on direct appeal. Movant's conviction and sentence have already been affirmed on direct appeal, Redzic, 627 F.3d 683, cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2126 (2011), and thus Movant now is challenging them by collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Movant's misplaced reliance on § 3143(b) is not fatal, however, because "it is within the inherent power of a District Court of the United States to enlarge a state prisoner on bond pending hearing and decision on his [or her] application for a writ of habeas corpus." Martin v. Solem, 801 F.2d 324, 329 (8th Cir. 1986) (alteration in original). The District Courts have an equivalent inherent power with respect to federal prisoners seeking relief under § 2255. Alton v. United States, 928 F.Supp. 885, 889 (E.D. Mo. 1996). The District Courts are to exercise this power only if a federal prisoner's § 2255 motion alleges "the existence of a substantial constitutional issue on which he is likely to prevail," and the presence of some "exceptional circumstances" that require his "immediate release in the interests of justice." Id. Accordingly, "[h]abeas petitioners are rarely granted release on bail pending disposition[.]" Martin, 801 F.2d at 329.
The substance of Movant's instant Motion for Bail is merely a recitation of the allegations he makes in support of his § 2255 Motion. These allegations do not amount to exceptional circumstances, because "there is nothing unusual about a claim of unlawful confinement in a habeas proceeding." Id. at 330. Because Movant makes no additional allegations, Movant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to be released from prison on bail pending the disposition of his § 2255 Motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant Mustafa Redzic's Motion for Bail Pending Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE