From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hunter v. McKune

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Aug 7, 2007
CASE NO. 07-3142-SAC (D. Kan. Aug. 7, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO. 07-3142-SAC.

August 7, 2007


ORDER


Petitioner proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis on a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the court is petitioner's motion for his release on his own recognizance pending the resolution of this action. Petitioner maintains his current confinement is pursuant to an illegal sentence, and argues he should be released to prevent further unlawful confinement which is being prolonged by the extensions of time granted to respondents for filing an Answer and Return.

A federal district court has inherent power to release or "enlarge" a state prisoner on bond, pending a hearing and a decision on a petition for habeas corpus. Pfaff v. Wells, 648 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir. 1981). To grant such relief, however, a habeas inmate must show exceptional circumstances and demonstrate a clear case on the merits of the habeas petition. Id. at 693;Johnson v. Nelson, 877 F.Supp. 569, 570 (D.Kan. 1995).

In the present case, the court finds petitioner has demonstrated neither a likelihood nor a high probability of success on substantial claims of constitutional deprivation. The court further finds no showing of exceptional, special, or extraordinary circumstances that require petitioner's release from custody. Accordingly, petitioner's motion for release on his own recognizance is denied, and his request for an evidentiary hearing on this motion is now moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for release on recognizance (Doc. 13) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hunter v. McKune

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Aug 7, 2007
CASE NO. 07-3142-SAC (D. Kan. Aug. 7, 2007)
Case details for

Hunter v. McKune

Case Details

Full title:DELARICK HUNTER, Petitioner, v. DAVID R. McKUNE, et al., Respondents

Court:United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Aug 7, 2007

Citations

CASE NO. 07-3142-SAC (D. Kan. Aug. 7, 2007)