Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01073/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01073-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 On the docket sheet, Respondent's first name is misspelled as "Derrel." 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

Petitioner,

 v.

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-01073 SBA (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING

MOTIONS AND GRANTING

PETITIONER AN EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL

TRAVERSE

(Docket nos. 16, 17) 

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California State Prison - Corcoran

(Corcoran), filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The Court ordered Respondent Warden Derral Adams1 to show cause why the petition

should not be granted. On November 9, 2007, Respondent filed an answer addressing the merits of

the petition along with a supporting memorandum. Respondent also lodged with the Court various

exhibits supporting his answer. On December 7, 2007, Petitioner filed a declaration "in opposition

to answer." Petitioner also filed memorandums in support of his "response to the answer" on

December 14, 2007 and December 26, 2007. 

Before the Court are Petitioner's "Motion for Injunctive Relief and Temporary Restraining

Order (TRO)" and request for an evidentiary hearing (docket nos. 16, 17). The Court now addresses

Petitioner's pending motions. 

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Injunctive Relief and TRO

Petitioner requests the Court to issue: (1) an "injunction" directing Respondent to serve him

with the exhibits so that he may prepare his traverse; and (2) a TRO "ordering the [Corcoran] prison

mailroom to stop arbitrarily tampering with petitioners [sic] legal mail with the intentions [sic] of

hindering his access to the courts." (Mot. for Injunctive Relief and TRO at 2, 4.)

Case 4:07-cv-01073-SBA Document 24 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Petitioner claims that his legal property was destroyed by prison officials on February 14,

2006. He alleges he needs copies of the exhibits attached to Respondent's answer in order to prepare

his traverse. Instead of a request for an injunction, the Court construes this motion as a request for

an order directing Respondent to serve Petitioner with the exhibits. Good cause appearing,

Petitioner's request is GRANTED. 

Because Petitioner has previously filed documents labeled as "oppositions" and "responses"

to the answer which could be deemed as his traverse, the Court GRANTS Petitioner an extension of

time to file a supplemental traverse after he receives the exhibits from Respondent. The parties are

directed to abide by the schedule outlined below.

With regard to Petitioner's motion for a TRO, because Corcoran is not in this judicial district,

Petitioner must present any claims regarding his conditions of confinement at that prison in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Therefore, the Court DENIES

Petitioner's motion for a TRO relating to Corcoran prison officials denying him access to the courts. 

This denial is without prejudice to filing an action in the Eastern District of California, where

Corcoran is located.

II. Request for an Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing in this action. 

Under the AEDPA express limitations are imposed on the power of a federal court to grant

an evidentiary hearing. The habeas statute provides that a district court may not hold an evidentiary

hearing on a claim for which the petitioner failed to develop a factual basis in state court unless

petitioner shows that: (1) the claim relies either on (a) a new rule of constitutional law that the

Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review, or (b) a factual predicate that

could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence, and (2) the facts

underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for

constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the

underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). 

Even if an evidentiary hearing is permitted because a prisoner was able to clear the hurdle

posed by § 2254(e)(2), one is not required. Downs v. Hoyt, 232 F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 4:07-cv-01073-SBA Document 24 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The district court retains discretion whether to hold an evidentiary hearing or to expand the record

with discovery and documentary evidence instead. Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 590 (9th

Cir. 2004). This permissible intermediate step may avoid the necessity of an expensive and time

consuming hearing in every habeas corpus case. Id. at 590-91.

Here, as a threshold matter, Petitioner has not alleged why he is entitled to an evidentiary

hearing under § 2254(e)(2). He does not assert that his claim relies on a new rule of constitutional

law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review, nor does he allege

that the factual predicate of his claim could not have been previously discovered through the

exercise of due diligence. Moreover, it is not clear to the Court that the facts which Petitioner seeks

to develop could not be gathered other than by way of an evidentiary hearing, through the use of

discovery and supplementation of the record. See Downs, 232 F.3d at 1041. Accordingly, the

request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED without prejudice. This denial is without prejudice to

the Court's sua sponte reconsideration should the Court find an evidentiary hearing necessary

following consideration of the merits of Petitioner's claims. 

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner's "Motion for Injunctive Relief and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)"

(docket no. 16) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

2. Petitioner's request for an order directing Respondent to serve him with the exhibits

attached to the answer (docket no. 16) is GRANTED. Respondent shall serve Petitioner with a copy

of the exhibits lodged with the Court no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. 

Petitioner shall file his supplemental traverse no later than forty-five (45) days from the date of this

Order. Should Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision

forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order.

3. Petitioner's motion for a TRO relating to Corcoran prison officials denying him

access to the courts (docket no. 16) is DENIED without prejudice to filing an action in the Eastern

District of California. 

4. Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing (docket no. 17) is DENIED without

prejudice. 

Case 4:07-cv-01073-SBA Document 24 Filed 09/30/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.07\Bradford1073.pendMOTS&EOTsuptrav.wpd 4

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Respondent Derrel Adams's first name

with the correct spelling, Derral.

6. This Order terminates Docket no. 16 and 17. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/30/08 _______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:07-cv-01073-SBA Document 24 Filed 09/30/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.07\Bradford1073.pendMOTS&EOTsuptrav.wpd 5

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DARRAL ADAMS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-01073 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 1, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Raymond Alford Bradford H-16258

California State Prison

CSP-Corcoran

P.O. Box 3481

Corcoran, CA 93212

Dated: October 1, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-01073-SBA Document 24 Filed 09/30/08 Page 5 of 5