Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05088/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05088-3/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

 Petitioner is advised that the Court’s order of April 29, 2004, specifically stated that “[a]ll motions shall be 1

submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 78-230(h).”

(Court Doc. 7, at 3.) 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT RAY EMERSON, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5088 AWI DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

vs. AND VACATING HEARING DATE

JAMES A. YATES, Warden, [Doc. 33]

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 4, 2005, Respondent filed an answer to the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus,

and Petitioner filed a traverse on September 12, 2005. 

On October 17, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing and the motion was

noticed for oral argument on November 18, 2005, at 9 a.m., before the undersigned. Respondent filed 1

an opposition on November 3, 2005. 

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

Case 1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB Document 35 Filed 11/04/05 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

 The parties are advised that the Court will review the instant petition in due course; however, the Court’s docket 2

of pending cases is substantial, and the Court must act first on those matters that have been pending the longest. 

2

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

th

function of an evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact, Townsend v. Swain 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. 

As the Court has yet to review the merits of petitioner’s petition, it is unable to determine

whether there is a disputed issue of fact that requires an evidentiary hearing. Following a thorough

review of the petition’s merits, the Court will sua sponte issue an order for an evidentiary hearing

should it find one necessary.2

Accordingly, the motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED, without prejudice to

renewing the motion at the appropriate time.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 4, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB Document 35 Filed 11/04/05 Page 2 of 2