Zander v. USA, No. 2:2015cv00625 - Document 21 (D. Utah 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 13 Motion for Release. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/18/16 (alt)

Download PDF
Zander v. USA Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION JEFFREY CHARLES ZANDER, Petitioner, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MR. ZANDER’S [13] MOTION FOR RELEASE v. Case No. 2:15-CV-00625-DN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, District Judge David Nuffer Respondent. Pending for review is Petitioner Jeffrey Zander’s Motion for Release. 1 For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED. Mr. Zander contends he is entitled to release from prison in order to effectively pursue his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Mr. Zander states that his “case files and legal materials have been seized by Bureau of Prisons officials and not returned[,]” and “[t]his denial of access to case files and legal materials prevents him from preparing and presenting his case under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”2 Courts have inherent power to release a defendant pending a ruling on a habeas petition if the defendant shows “exceptional circumstances” or “a clear case on the merits of the habeas petition.” 3 Mr. Zander has not shown exceptional circumstances for release. Mr. Zander states that he is denied access to case files and legal material, but he does not provide any information on what he possess or what he lacks, and why he is unable to prepare for his § 2255 motion without the material. Furthermore, although not fully briefed, Mr. Zander’s § 2255 motion has 1 Docket no. 13, filed June 17, 2106. 2 Id. at 2. 3 Pfaff v. Wells, 648 F.2d 689, 693 (10th Cir.1981). Dockets.Justia.com been preliminarily reviewed, and it does not appear, at this time, that Mr. Zander has demonstrated a clear case on the merits. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Zander’s Motion for Release is DENIED. Dated July 18, 2016. BY THE COURT: ____________________________ David Nuffer 2

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.