Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01447/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01447-3/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

JASON SCOTT HARPER,

Petitioner,

v.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1447 REC DLB HC

ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST TO SET HEARING DATE

[Doc. 8]

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 on November 16, 2005. On December 23, 2005,

Petitioner filed a request to set a hearing date. (Court Doc. 8.) The Court construes Petitioner’s

request as a motion for an evidentiary hearing. 

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. Sain th

Case 1:05-cv-01447-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 02/27/06 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 In fact, the Court has simultaneously directed Petitioner to either submit a completed in forma pauperis 1

application or pay the $5.00 filing fee. 

2

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. 

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

instant case, the Court has set to review the instant petition and until 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 1

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: February 26, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01447-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 2