Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01757/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01757-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAN REED,

Petitioner,

v.

LYDIA HENSE,

Respondent.

 /

1: 06 CV 01757 OWW WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MO TIO N FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[Doc. 22]

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

U.S.C. Section 2254. On December 28, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing.

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 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. 

Case 1:06-cv-01757-OWW -JMD Document 28 Filed 02/15/08 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

See, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9 Cir.1992). As the function of an evidentiary th

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 claim, 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.

Accordingly, the request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01757-OWW -JMD Document 28 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 2