Thomas v. Howes, No. 2:2008cv14273 - Document 17 (E.D. Mich. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 16 Motion for Bond; denying 16 Motion for Judgment. Signed by District Judge Patrick J Duggan. (MOre)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EDWARD THOMAS, Petitioner, v. Case Number: 08-cv-14273 Honorable Patrick J. Duggan CAROL HOWES, Respondent. _________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER S MOTION FOR APPEAL BOND OR EXPEDITED JUDGMENT At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. District Courthouse, Eastern District of Michigan, on February 22, 2010. PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE On October 7, 2008, Petitioner Edward Thomas ( Petitioner ), a state prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254. Petitioner challenges his convictions in October 2006, following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan, for (1) kidnapping, (2) criminal sexual conduct, fourth degree, and (3) domestic violence. Petitioner contends that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Respondent filed a response to the petition and Rule 5 materials on July 1 and 6, 2009, respectively. Presently before the Court is Petitioner s motion for bond or expedited judgment, filed January 27, 2010. The standard for entitlement to bail pending a decision on the merits in a habeas corpus proceeding is difficult to satisfy: In order to receive bail pending a decision on the merits, prisoners must be able to show not only a substantial claim of law based on the facts surrounding the petition but also the existence of some circumstances making the motion for bail exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice. Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964)). The Dotson court indicated that [t]here will be few occasions where a prisoner will meet this standard. Id. Since 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 v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993). Petitioner has not met the standard for bond set forth in Dotson, particularly as his only challenge to his conviction is an insufficiency of the evidence claim. Relief, therefore, must await review of the state-court record. Petitioner alternatively asks the Court to expedite its decision relative to his habeas petition. Petitioner, however, fails to show good cause to expedite a ruling on his petition. Petitioner has not demonstrated that reviewing this matter in the Court s normal course would be prejudicial to his interests or constitute undue delay. Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED, that Petitioner s Motion for Appeal Bond or Expedited Judgment is DENIED. s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Edward Thomas, #524590 Cooper Street Correctional Facility 3100 Cooper Street Jackson, MI 49201 Laura Cook, Esq. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
