Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-23/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

MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR TELECONFERENCE WITH 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE

(Doc. 60)

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Before the Court is 

Petitioner’s motion to “the newly assigned District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston for an immediate 

teleconference.” (Doc. 60.) Specifically, Petitioner repeats his arguments that Respondent 

“failed to file the body camera recordings” and a hearing is necessary for him to “factually 

dispute Respondent” and “establish the rights of the parties.” (Id. at 1-2). 

The Court notes Petitioner previously moved eight times for an evidentiary hearing, and 

all requests were denied. (Docs. 8, 20, 33, 40, 42, 46, 52, 57.) Evidentiary hearings are granted 

only under limited circumstances in habeas proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii). 

Although Respondent filed an answer to the petition, the Court directed Respondent to submit 

supplemental briefing. (See Doc. 67.) Thus, it would be premature to set an evidentiary hearing 

at this time. The Court will review the briefing and make findings and recommendations in due 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 71 Filed 06/28/22 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

course. If the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, it will schedule one at 

that time. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 8(a). Moreover, it does not appear a 

teleconference between the Court and the parties is necessary or appropriate at this juncture in the 

proceedings. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Petitioner’s motion for a teleconference with the 

assigned District Judge (Doc. 60) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2022 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 71 Filed 06/28/22 Page 2 of 2