Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00903/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00903-5/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

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

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY J. CLOUGH,

Petitioner,

v.

M.S. EVANS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0903 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[Doc. 4]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 17, 2006, along with

a motion for an evidentiary hearing. (Court Docs. 1, 4.) 

Rule 8(a) provides that where a petition is not dismissed at a previous stage in the

proceeding, the judge, after the answer and transcripts and record of the state court proceedings

are filed, shall, upon review of those proceedings, determine whether an evidentiary hearing is

required. The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to resolve the merits of a factual dispute. An

evidentiary hearing on a claim is required where it is clear from the petition that: (1) the

allegations, if established, would entitle the petitioner to relief; and (2) the state court trier of

fact has not reliably found the relevant facts. See, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103

(9 Cir.1992). As the function of an evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact, Townsend v. th

Swain 372 U.S. 293, 309 (1963)(overruled in part by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112

Case 1:06-cv-00903-DLB Document 13 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 2
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

28

2

S.Ct. 1715 (1993)), such a hearing is unnecessary when only issues of law are raised. Id. 

Although the Court has simultaneously issued an order directing Respondent to file a

response to the petition, the Court has yet to review the merits of petitioner’s claim and is

therefore unable to determine whether there is a disputed issue of fact that requires an evidentiary

hearing. Following a thorough review of the petition’s merits, the Court will sua sponte issue an

order for an evidentiary hearing should it find one necessary.

Accordingly, the request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED, without prejudice to

renewing the request if and when appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 8, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00903-DLB Document 13 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 2