The opinion of the court was delivered by: Debra Freeman, United States Magistrate Judge
In this habeas proceeding, pro se petitioner Terence Boddie ("Petitioner") has moved for release on bail or personal recognizance pending resolution of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Petitioner's Notice of Motion Seeking a Stay of the Judgment and Immediate Release, dated Feb. 3, 2009 ("Pet. Motion for Release") (Dkt. 11).)*fn1 The underlying habeas petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenges a 2007 decision of the New York State Division of Parole (the "Parole Division, or "Respondent")*fn2 revoking Petitioner's parole. (Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, dated Oct. 3, 2008 ("Petition") (Dkt. 2).) In his pending motion, Petitioner not only seeks immediate release from custody, but also requests that his release be supervised by federal, rather than state, parole officials. (Id.) For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner's motion for immediate release is DENIED.
Federal courts possess the "inherent authority to admit to bail individuals properly within their jurisdiction." Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2001). In the habeas context, however, the power to grant bail is a "limited one, to be exercised in special cases only." Id. As explained by the Second Circuit:
[T]he standard for bail pending habeas litigation is a difficult one to meet: The Petitioner must demonstrate that the habeas petition raises substantial claims and that extraordinary circumstances exist that make the grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective.
Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
In determining whether the standard articulated in Mapp has been met, the Court considers three factors: (1) whether substantial claims are set forth in the habeas corpus petition; (2) whether the petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his or her petition; and (3) whether there are extraordinary circumstances attending the petitioner's situation which would require release on bail in order to make the writ of habeas corpus effective. See Samuel v. INS, No. 01 Civ. 3413 (LTS)(RLE), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 801, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2005); Defino v. Thomas, No. 02 Civ. 7413 (RWS), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2003); see also Richard v. Abrams, 732 F. Supp. 24, 25 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (noting that where a habeas petitioner seeks release on bail, an essential factor "is the necessity that the petition present merits that are more than slightly in petitioner's favor").
By separate Report and Recommendation of this date, this Court has recommended to the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, United States District Judge, that the Petition be dismissed on the grounds that Petitioner's claims are not only unexhausted and procedurally barred, but are also without merit. (See Report and Recommendation, dated May 29, 2009.)
For the reasons discussed in the Report and Recommendation, familiarity with which is assumed, Petitioner has not established that he will likely prevail on the merits of his claim. Given that he must make such a showing to demonstrate entitlement to release on bail or personal recognizance, Petitioner's motion for immediate release is DENIED.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for immediate release on bail or personal recognizance, under the supervision of federal authorities (Dkt. 11) is denied.