Asadieidivand v. Rasool

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Mehrad Asadieidivand, No. CV-25-02475-PHX-KML (JFM) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Ghulam Rasool, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 On August 25, 2025, petitioner filed a supplemental brief by the noon deadline.

16 Respondents filed their brief hours after the deadline without explanation. Based on those filings, the previously-ordered discovery is necessary to determine the merits of the petition. But those briefs and the remainder of the record establish bail pending adjudication of the petition is not appropriate. If the court has the authority to grant bail here, doing so would be appropriate only in “special circumstances.” Matter of Requested Extradition of Kirby, 106 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir. 1996) (bail pending extradition hearing).

22 Petitioner has been detained for a relatively brief period and there is currently no indication bail is “necessary to make the habeas remedy effective.” Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2001) (simplified).

25 / / / / 1 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Bail (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the oral argument scheduled for August 28, 2025, is VACATED.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED petitioner shall file a supplemental brief addressing || the merits of his claims within ten days of the completion of discovery. Respondents shall 6|| file a response brief within ten days of the filing of petitioner’s brief, and petitioner shall file his reply within five days of the filing of the response.

8 Dated this 26th day of August, 2025.

10 4 {ff Vo ’ Vy f \ G. / , Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 12 United States District Judge -2-