Pafford v. Kelly, 4:19-cv-04142

Petitioner James C. Pafford is serving an aggregate 50-year Arkansas sentence (two consecutive 25‑year rape terms; concurrent 5‑year sexual‑assault terms) imposed in 2016 and affirmed on state appeal.
Pafford is 76 years old with chronic medical conditions: Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, thyroid disease, prior open‑heart surgery, limited mobility requiring a walker, and daily medications.
He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in November 2019; that petition remains pending in this Court.
On April 15, 2020 Pafford moved for (1) compassionate early release under the Eighth Amendment, (2) release on bond pending habeas resolution, or (3) a medical furlough due to COVID‑19 risk.
The ADC submitted that the facility had taken COVID‑19 precautions and, at the time of briefing, there were no positive cases at Pafford’s unit.
Magistrate Judge Bryant recommended denying the emergency motion in full, finding no demonstrated heightened risk at Pafford’s unit, no Eighth Amendment violation, and that Pafford did not meet the high standard for bond or furlough.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compassionate early release under Eighth Amendment (COVID risk)	Pafford: age and medical conditions create high risk of severe COVID‑19, so continued incarceration is cruel and unusual	Respondent: no evidence of increased exposure at Ouachita River Unit; ADC precautions; no COVID cases at that unit	Denied — petitioner failed to show an unreasonable or heightened risk required by Eighth Amendment (per Helling standard)
Release on bail/bond pending habeas	Pafford: requests bond pending resolution of his §2254 petition	Respondent: bond is extraordinary relief; petitioner has not shown a substantial federal claim or clear case on the facts	Denied — petitioner did not meet the stringent Martin standard for bail pending habeas
Medical furlough due to COVID‑19	Pafford: medical vulnerabilities justify furlough to avoid COVID‑19 exposure	Respondent: no showing of COVID‑19 presence or increased risk at petitioner’s unit; furlough unwarranted on facts	Denied — no factual basis for medical furlough (court did not decide authority question)

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (Eighth Amendment requires demonstration of an unreasonable risk of serious harm to future health)
Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869 (6th Cir. 1993) (release on bail pending habeas is very unusual)
Martin v. Solem, 801 F.2d 324 (8th Cir. 1986) (standard for bail pending habeas requires a substantial federal claim and a clear case on the facts)
Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1990) (objections to magistrate judge reports must be timely and specific to trigger de novo review)