Opinion
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-13886
06-06-2012
DWAYNE BALLINGER, JR., Petitioner, v. JOHN PRELESNIK, Respondent.
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTIONS FOR A STAY OF
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PENDING APPEAL AND SETTING A HEARING
FOR PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR BOND
This matter is before the Court on Respondent's motions for a stay pending the appeal of the Court's decision to grant habeas relief to Petitioner. For the reasons stated below, the motion for a stay is GRANTED. The Court will further take Petitioner's motion for bail under advisement and will schedule the matter for a hearing.
On February 23, 2012, this Court granted Petitioner a conditional writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. [Dkt. 12]. Respondent has filed two motions for a stay pending appeal. [Dkts. 14 and 23]. In response, Petitioner has filed a motion for release on bond. [Dkt. 21].
There is a presumption that a successful habeas petitioner should be released from custody pending the state's appeal of a federal court decision granting habeas relief, but this presumption may be overcome if the judge rendering the decision, or an appellate court or judge, orders otherwise. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 774 (1987); Workman v. Tate, 958 F. 2d 164, 166 (6th Cir. 1992); F.R.A.P. Rule 23(c). Because habeas proceedings are civil in nature, the general standards of governing stays of civil judgments should also guide courts when they must decide whether to release a habeas petitioner pending the state's appeal. Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776.
The factors regulating the issuance of a stay are:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776; Workman v. Tate, 958 F. 2d at 166.
(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
(3) whether the issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies.
In determining whether to grant a stay, a federal court may also consider "[t]he State's interest in continuing custody and rehabilitation pending a final determination of the case on appeal ...; it will be strongest where the remaining portion of the sentence to be served is long, and weakest where there is little of the sentence remaining to be served." Hilton, 481 U.S. at 777.
Although this Court disagrees with Respondent's claim that he has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of the case on appeal, the Court will grant respondent a stay pending appeal. Although Petitioner may suffer injury from his continued confinement pursuant to a conviction that this Court has found to be constitutionally infirm, "it would be a waste of judicial resources for the appeal to proceed in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, while simultaneously requiring the State to grant relief to Petitioner." Williams v. Booker, 715 F. Supp. 2d 756, 770 (E.D. Mich. 2010); rev'd on other grds, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 212, No. 2012 WL 15722 (6th Cir. January 5, 2012). Accordingly, the Court will grant Respondent's motion for stay pending appeal.
IT IS ORDERED THAT Respondent's Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal [Dkts. 14 and 23] are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing will be held on Petitioner's Motion for Bond on Monday, June 18, 2012 at 3:00 p.m.
SO ORDERED
____________________________
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on June 6, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant