Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00720/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00720-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

16cv720-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR PABLO MOLINA,

Petitioner, 

v.

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,

Respondent. 

Case No.: 16cv720-JLS-MDD

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S 

MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING

[ECF No. 20]

Hector Pablo Molina (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 

seeks federal habeas relief from a felony conviction for second degree murder.

On November 11, 2016, Petitioner constructively filed a motion for an 

evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 20). On December 9, 2016, Respondent timely 

filed an opposition. (ECF No. 22). Petitioner did not file a reply. (See

Docket). Petitioner requests that the Court conduct an evidentiary hearing. 

(See ECF No. 20). A federal court’s discretion to hold an evidentiary hearing 

is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), which provides:

If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in 

State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary 

hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that –

(A) the claim relies on –

Case 3:16-cv-00720-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 01/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16cv720-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on 

collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously made 

unavailable; or

(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously 

discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and

(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish 

by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, 

no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of 

the underlying offense.

“Federal courts sitting in habeas are not an alternative forum for trying 

facts and issue which a prisoner made insufficient effort to pursue in state 

proceedings.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 437. Petitioner generally argues that the 

state court “failed to provide a full and fair [h]earing and the District Court 

now is required to hold an . . . Evidentiary hearing in accord” because the 

verdict was “illogical,” “unbelievable” and “witnesses are of central issue.” 

(ECF No. 20 at 8-9). Petitioner does not establish that his request relies on a 

new rule of constitutional law, or a factual predicate that could not have been 

previously discovered through due diligence. (See ECF No. 20). Similarly, 

Petitioner has not alleged facts that would be sufficient to establish by clear 

and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable 

factfinder would have found him guilty of the underlying offense. (See id.). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary 

hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00720-JLS-MDD Document 27 Filed 01/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2