Is a district court's order granting or denying an interim release motion in a habeas case an appealable collateral order?

QUESTION PRESENTED Mr. Centofanti is a state prisoner litigating a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254. He has substantial claims for relief. He also has substantial health issues, including recent cancer treatment, which put him at an elevated risk for negative health outcomes if he contracts the novel coronavirus. Because the pandemic poses an imminent threat to his health while he remains in prison, Mr. Centofanti filed a motion in the district court seeking release on an interim basis while he continued to litigate his federal habeas petition. The district court denied the motion. Mr. Centofanti attempted to pursue an interlocutory appeal, but the Ninth Circuit refused to allow an appeal. Applying its prior precedent, the Ninth Circuit instead required Mr. Centofanti to challenge the district court’s decision through a mandamus petition, not a normal appeal. As a result, the Ninth Circuit applied a more deferential standard of review to the district court’s decision, and it accordingly denied the mandamus petition. The Ninth Circuit is one of only two circuit courts of appeals that disallow interlocutory appeals of interim release decisions. By contrast, at least seven circuit courts of appeals treat interim release decisions as appealable collateral orders. The question presented is: Is a district court’s order granting or denying an interim release motion in a habeas case an appealable collateral order? i