Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00635/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00635-0/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

The court notes that Petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing in his supplemental habeas

petition. (Supp. Pet. at 18.) The R&R concluded that Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing

was unsupported. (See R&R at 15.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), where a petitioner “has failed to

develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,” the petitioner can only receive an

- 1 - 07cv0635

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE WRIGHT JORDAN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07 CV 0635 JM (RBB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION

J. MARSHALL, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner filed a § 2254 habeas petition on April 9, 2007, and a supplemental petition on May

15, 2007. Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding that he

personally used a firearm during one of the eight second-degree robberies for which he was convicted.

Respondent filed a response on June 19, 2007, and Petitioner filed a traverse on July 20, 2007. 

On November 14, 2007, Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the court deny Petitioner’s § 2254 petition. Petitioner

filed no objections.

Having carefully considered the thorough and thoughtful R&R, the record before the court,

the absence of any objections to the R&R, and the applicable authorities, the court wholly adopts the

R&R.1

Case 3:07-cv-00635-JM-RBB Document 11 Filed 01/30/08 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

evidentiary hearing upon a showing that (A) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law or

facts “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). The court agrees with the R&R and finds that Petitioner

has failed to satisfy any of § 2254(e)(2)’s requirements for an evidentiary hearing.

- 2 - 07cv0635

In sum, the R&R is hereby adopted in full and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is

DENIED and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-00635-JM-RBB Document 11 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 2