Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00626/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00626-8/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

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ALLEN K. SCRIBNER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00626-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

(Docs. 16 and 17) 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 8, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition

on the grounds that Petitioner cannot satisfy the “in custody” requirement for filing a federal

petition. (Doc. 31). 

Previously, on December 4, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. 

(Doc. 16). On December 7, 2007, Petitioner filed an almost identical motion for evidentiary

hearing. (Doc. 17). As grounds therefore, Petitioner contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary

hearing because the state court has “failed to acknowledge” Petitioner’s evidence that he did not

receive a fair trial. On December 20, 2007, Respondent filed an opposition to Petitioner’s

motions, contending that the motions were premature and that they should be denied without

prejudice. (Doc. 18). The Court agrees with Respondent.

Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases under 28 U.S.C § 2254 provides

that where a petition is not dismissed, the judge must review the answer, any transcripts and

Case 1:06-cv-00626-OWW -TAG Document 35 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 3
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

records of the state court proceedings, and any materials submitted under Rule 7, and determine

whether an evidentiary hearing is required. The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to resolve

the merits of a factual dispute, and is not necessary in all cases. 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. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.1992). The purpose of an

evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact. Townsend v. Swain 372 U.S. 293, 309, 312-313, 83

S. Ct. 745 (1963), overruled in part by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715

(1992)). Consequently, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary when only issues of law are raised.

Id. 

In this case, Petitioner challenges a 2004 conviction in the Superior Court for the County

of Kings for indecent exposure, a crime apparently committed while Petitioner was incarcerated

in state prison on an unrelated offense. (Doc. 1; Doc. 34). As mentioned, on July 8, 2008,

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Because this motion was filed so recently, the

Court has not had an opportunity to review the motion or prepare an order disposing of the

motion. If the motion has merit and requires the dismissal of the petition, no evidentiary hearing

would be required. If the motion to dismiss is denied, Respondent would be ordered to file an

answer to the petition, and the Court would then have to review the answer and prepare findings

and recommendations regarding the merits of the petition. 

However, at this time, the Court has not yet conducted a review of the merits of the

petition and thus, a determination of whether or not there exists a factual dispute of the type that

warrants an evidentiary hearing cannot be made at this time. Indeed, even Petitioner does not

actually allege that factual issues exist; rather, he maintains that the state court has “failed to

acknowledge” his evidence. While Petitioner’s allegation is not entirely clear to the Court, it

appears that he believes evidence in the state court record will show he has valid claims on the

merits. 

If and when the Court orders Respondent to file an answer, Respondent will also be

ordered to provide all pertinent parts of the state court record related to Petitioner’s claims. Once

Case 1:06-cv-00626-OWW -TAG Document 35 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

that record is lodged with the Court, the Court will be in a position to determine whether factual

issues exist that would require an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner can be assured that the Court

will sua sponte issue an order for an evidentiary hearing should it find one necessary.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motions for an evidentiary hearing (Docs. 16 & 17), are

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00626-OWW -TAG Document 35 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 3