Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00490/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00490-1/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

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

BARBARA LYNN CHAVEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

GLORIA HENRY, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-00490 REC DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[Doc. 2]

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 April 13, 2005, along with

a request for an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner requests the Court to conduct an evidentiary

hearing “to make determinations of factual issues addressed in the meritorious claims” in the

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

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

Case 1:05-cv-00490-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 05/20/05 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

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

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

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

In the instant case, Petitioner’s only justification is to make determination of factual

issues addressed in the petition. As noted above, the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to

resolve the merits of a factual dispute. Until the Court conducts a thorough review of the merits

of Petitioner’s claims, it cannot be determined that a factual dispute necessitating an evidentiary

hearing is present. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00490-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2