United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR
J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE .
Eugene Watkins, (“Petitioner”), currently
confined at the Carson City Correctional Facility in Carson
City, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, through his attorneys
James C. Thomas and Phillip D. Comorski. This Court granted
petitioner a writ of habeas corpus, finding that he had been
denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Watkins
v. Haas, 143 F.Supp.3d 632, 634 (E.D. Mich. 2015). The
Sixth Circuit reversed this Court's decision. Watkins
v. Deangelo-Kipp, 854 F.3d 846 (6th Cir. 2017).
Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of certiorari which
remains pending in the United States Supreme Court.
Watkins v. Deangelo-Kipp, No. 16-1385 (U.S.).
Pending before the Court is petitioner's pro se
motion for reconsideration, in which he seeks to be released
on bond. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Court denies petitioner's motion for several reasons.
a habeas petitioner who is represented by counsel is not
entitled to consideration of any pro se motions that
he or she files on his or her behalf. See Jones v.
Bradshaw, 138 F.Supp.3d 921, 923 (N.D. Ohio 2015). A
habeas petitioner is not entitled to “proceed by means
of hybrid representation” in his or her case.
Id. (citing United States v. Mosely, 810
F.2d 93, 97 (6th Cir.1987)). Petitioner is represented by
competent counsel, therefore, any motions on his behalf
should be filed by his attorneys.
petitioner is not entitled to a bond pending appeal because
the Sixth Circuit reversed this Court's decision to grant
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;
(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent
(3) whether the issuance of the stay will substantially
injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies.
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. at 776; Workman
v. Tate, 958 F.2d at 166.
determining whether to release a successful petitioner on
bail pending the appeal of the order granting relief to a
habeas petitioner, federal courts are not restricted to
consider only the petitioner's risk of flight, but are
authorized to consider traditional stay factors, including
the risk that petitioner would pose a danger to the public if
released, the state's interest in continuing custody and
rehabilitation of the petitioner, the interest of the habeas
petitioner in his or her release pending appeal, and the
likelihood of the state's success on the merits of the
appeal. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. at 777. The
state's interest in continuing custody and rehabilitation
of the habeas petitioner pending a final determination of the
case on appeal 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.
Id. The interests of the habeas petitioner in
release pending appeal, while always substantial, will be
strongest where these factors are the weakest. Id.
at 777-778. The balance of factors relevant to determining
whether a successful habeas petitioner should be released
pending appeal may Watkins v. Deangelo-Kipp, No.
10-cv-13199 depend to a large extent upon a determination of
the state's prospects of success in its appeal.
Hilton, 481 U.S. at 778; Workman v. Tate,
958 F.2d at 166.
this Court still believes that it was correct to grant habeas
relief, the Sixth Circuit felt otherwise and reversed this
Court's decision. The Sixth Circuit vacated this
Court's decision to grant habeas relief; there is no
longer a “presumption of release from custody”
nor is the case under review by the Sixth Circuit. Petitioner
is thus not entitled ...