Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Frederick G. Land v. George Deeds, Warden and Brian McKay Attorney General of the State of Nevada

878 F.2d 318

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1989-06-29
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • rejecting prisoner's challenge to district court's denial of bail pending decision on habeas petition without considering whether district court had power to grant bail in such circumstances
  • "Bail pending a decision in a habeas cases is reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success."
  • “Bail pending a decision in a habeas case is reserved for extraordinary cases involving special 20 circumstances or a high probability of success.”
  • “Bail pending a decision in a habeas case is reserved for extraordinary 28 cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success.”
  • “Bail pending a decision in a habeas case is reserved 27 for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success.”
  • this court may construe an invalid appeal as a mandamus petition

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Frederick G. Land v. George Deeds, Warden and Brian McKay Attorney General of the State of Nevada. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
53 opinions
LAND v. DEEDS,878 F.2d 318(9th Cir. 1989)
FREDERICK G. LAND, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. GEORGE DEEDS, WARDEN AND BRIAN
McKAY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
No. 89-15627.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 1, 1989.
Decided June 29, 1989.
Frederick G. Land, Southern Desert Correctional Center, Indian Springs, Nev., for petitioner-appellant.

No appearance for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (Las Vegas).
Before BROWNING, THOMPSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Frederick Land appeals from a magistrate's order denying bail pending a decision on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under28 U.S.C. § 2254. This is neither an appeal from a final judgment,28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor a valid interlocutory appeal under the collateral order exception.See Flanagan v. UnitedStates,465 U.S. 259, 265, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 1054-55, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984);Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.,337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,see Woodcock v.Donnelly,470 F.2d 93(1st Cir. 1972),Glynn v. Donnelly,470 F.2d 95(1st Cir. 1972), and we construe this appeal from a non-appealable order as a petition for a writ of mandamus.SeeUnified Sewerage Agency v. Jelco, Inc.,646 F.2d 1339, 1343 (9th Cir. 1981) (an invalid appeal may be construed as a mandamus petition).

[2] Bail pending a decision in a habeas case is reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success.See Aronson v.Page 319May,85 S.Ct. 3, 5, 13 L.Ed.2d 6 (1964);Galante v. Warden,573 F.2d 707, 708 (2d Cir. 1977). Land has not demonstrated that he is entitled to release under this standard and therefore the district court's denial of bail in this case is not clearly erroneous.Bauman v. United States District Court,557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977). We therefore deny the request for bail or release pending a decision on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.