Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

878 F.2d 318

Docket No. 89-15627.

Land v. Deeds

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted June 1, 1989.

Decided June 29, 1989.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1989-06-29

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Bail pending a decision in a habeas cases is reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success.”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including United States v. Richard Bechtel, In Re: Ernie Roe

“construe this appeal from a non-appealable order as a petition for a writ of mandamus.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including United States v. Joey Lance Hopkins, United States v. James Edward Evanson

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Flanagan v. United States · Bauman v. United States District Court

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1989-06-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Allen v. Old National Bank of Washington (1990), Grune v. Coughlin (1990)

20 federal appellate ·

20019891990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Frederick G. Land, Southern Desert Correctional Center, Indian Springs, Nev., for petitioner-appellant.

¶2No appearance for respondents-appel-lees.

¶3Before BROWNING, THOMPSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5Frederick Land appeals from a magistrate’s order denying bail pending a decision on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 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. United States, 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. See Unified Sewerage Agency v. Jelco, Inc., 646 F.2d 1339, 1343 (9th Cir.1981) (an invalid appeal may be construed as a mandamus petition).

¶6Bail pending a decision in a habeas case is reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success. See Aronson v. *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.

/878/f2d/318 · .json · Public domain