The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHARLES BROWN,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 24-CV-236-SCD
MICHAEL MEISNER,
Warden, Fox Lake Correctional Institution,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELEASE ON BOND
PENDING DECISION
Charles Brown, a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
has filed a motion for release on bond pending this court’s decision on his petition. See ECF
No. 15. “There is substantial authority that federal district judges in habeas corpus
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 have ‘inherent power to admit applicants to bail pending
the decision of their cases, but a power to be exercised sparingly.’” Bergmann v. McCaughtry,
857 F. Supp. 640, 640 (E.D. Wis. 1994) (quoting Cherek v. United States, 767 F.2d 335, 337 (7th
Cir. 1985)). “[T]o obtain release on bail pending a decision of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, [the petitioner] must show ‘not only a substantial federal claim that presents not
merely a clear case on the law, but a clear, and readily evident, case on the facts.’” Id. at 641
(quoting Pethtel v. Att’y Gen. of Ind., 704 F. Supp. 166, 169 (N.D. Ind. 1989)). The petitioner
must also “establish the existence of some circumstance which makes the request for bail
exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interest of justice.” Id. (citing Pethtel,
704 F. Supp. at 169).
Brown asserts five factors that he says justify release from custody in this case. First,
Brown seeks to be released so he can attempt to obtain custody of his young daughter, who is
currently in foster care and whom Brown has never met. Second, Brown says that he has
already served over ten years on his sentence and that the trial judge rendered a sentence three
times longer than what the parties agreed to. Third, Brown believes he has a high chance of
success on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and his due process claim. Fourth,
Brown alleges that he has had a stellar disciplinary record while in custody and that he is older
and wiser and ready to be a productive member of society. Finally, Brown indicates that he
can reside with family members while his habeas case is pending.
The court sincerely empathizes with the difficult situation involving Brown’s daughter;
nevertheless, Brown has failed to show special circumstances justifying release from custody
pending review of his habeas petition. Brown pleaded guilty in state court, and his conviction
was affirmed on appeal, see ECF No. 1; thus, it’s unlikely he was unjustly convicted. See Cherek,
767 F.2d at 337 (“A defendant whose conviction has been affirmed on appeal (or who waived
his right of appeal, as by pleading guilty, or by foregoing appeal after being convicted
following a trial) is unlikely to have been convicted unjustly.”). This is why the threshold for
federal relief is so high. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (permitting relief only if the state court
decision is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent, the state court
unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent, or the state unreasonably applied the facts).
On top of that, the respondent has moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Brown
procedurally defaulted all his claims. See ECF No. 15. If that’s the case, then before reaching
the merits of his claims, Brown would have to demonstrate a sufficient excuse for his default—
another high hurdle to surmount. Put simply, Brown’s claims do not appear, at least at this
point, to be as strong as he believes.
Accordingly, the court DENIES the petitioner’s motion for release on bond pending
decision, ECF No. 15. Brown may renew his motion if the petition survives the respondent’s
motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of September, 2024.
es C. DRIES
United States Magistrate Judge