Reginald Nelson v. Lorie Davis, Director

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 1, 2018
• Docket: 18-20531
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 18-20531 Document: 00514663437 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20531 United States Court of Appeals

Summary Calendar Fifth Circuit

FILED October 1, 2018

REGINALD NELSON, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CV-2409

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Reginald Nelson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for release pending resolution of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application. Release was proper if Nelson “raised substantial constitutional claims upon which he has a high probability of success” and “extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist which make the grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-20531 Document: 00514663437 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2018

No. 18-20531

effective.” Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir. 1974). Extraordinary circumstances exist, for example, where there has been a “serious deterioration of the petitioner’s health while incarcerated”; where a short sentence for a relatively minor crime is “so near completion that extraordinary action is essential to make collateral review truly effective”; and possibly where there has been an “extraordinary delay in processing a habeas corpus petition.” Id. at 702 n.1. We need not address the merits of Nelson’s claims, which remain pending before the district court, because he has not demonstrated extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that necessitate his release. See Calley, 496 F.2d at 702. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Nelson’s motion for release without a hearing. The district court’s order is AFFIRMED. To the extent Nelson seeks to challenge the denial of his motions for appointment of counsel, he has not appealed those orders.