United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge
habeas case, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is before the
court upon Petitioner Shannon Copeland's “Request
for Modification of Custody” (Doc. 26), in which she
seeks release on bond pending resolution of her habeas
petition. The undersigned concludes that Copeland is not
entitled to the extraordinary relief she seeks.
habeas petition challenges her conviction and subsequent
revocation of probation in Liberty County Circuit Court Case
No. 2007-CF-60. (Doc. 1). Copeland's underlying
conviction is for Resisting a Law Enforcement Officer with
Violence. (Id.). Copeland's petition raises four
grounds for relief: (1) “Sentenced as incompetent
without being adjudicated competent;” (2)
“Sentenced based on unsubstantiated allegation;”
(3) “Charges based on false report of police officer
who lied to cover up abuse;” and (4) “Plea not
voluntary.” (Doc. 1 at 5-11). The State filed an answer
to the petition on November 27, 2018, (Doc. 19), and Copeland
replied on May 24, 2019, (Doc. 23).
Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir.
1990), the Eleventh Circuit set forth the applicable standard
for granting release pending the outcome of a habeas
A prisoner seeking release pending habeas corpus can be
granted bail under two sets of circumstances: first, he must
demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of a
substantial constitutional claim; second, extraordinary and
exceptional circumstances must exist which make the grant of
bail necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the habeas
corpus relief sought.
Gomez, 899 F.2d at 1125; see also Aronson v.
May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 4-5 (1964). Copeland alleges that she
is entitled to release on bond because: (1) she is due to be
released in two years, (2) she has been denied appointed
habeas counsel, (3) she has inadequate access to the prison
law library, (4) she has received several
“false/retaliatory” disciplinary convictions, (5)
her sentence was excessive, and (6) she is innocent of the
crime. (Doc. 26). These allegations do not show the existence
of any circumstance making Copeland's habeas application
exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the
interests of justice. Copeland is not entitled to the
extraordinary relief of release on bail.
Certificate of Appealability
11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts provides: “[t]he district court
must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it
enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A
district court's order denying bond is a final appealable
order under the collateral order doctrine; therefore, a
petitioner must have a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) to proceed on appeal. See Pagan v.
United States, 353 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 2003). If
a certificate is issued, “the court must state the
specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).” 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rule 11(a). A timely notice of appeal must still be filed,
even if the court issues a certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 11(b).
2253(c) permits the issuance of a COA only where a petitioner
has made a ‘substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.'” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)). “At the COA stage, the only question
is whether the applicant has shown that ‘jurists of
reason could disagree with the district court's
resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could
conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.'” Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 759, 774 (2017) (quoting
Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327). Here, Petitioner has
not made the requisite demonstration. Accordingly, the court
should deny a certificate of appealability in its final
second sentence of Rule 11(a) provides: “Before
entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to
submit arguments on whether a certificate should
issue.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 11(a). If there is
an objection to this recommendation by either party, that
party may bring such argument to the attention of the
district judge in the objections permitted to this report and