Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-24/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALAN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

Respondent.

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

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR A TELECONFERENCE

(Doc. No. 68)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL EXPERT TESTIMONY IN AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Doc. No. 69)

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motion for a teleconference and request that he 

be allowed to compel testimony in an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. Nos. 68, 69). Petitioner, who is 

pro se, has pending a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). 

On May 31, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for a teleconference. (Doc. No. 68). On June 9, 

2022, Petitioner filed a “stipulation motion” requesting “everyone involved to allow him to 

present an expert witness for evidentiary testimony.” (Doc. No. 69).

Petitioner has previously moved for an evidentiary hearing nine times, and all requests 

were denied. (Doc. Nos. 8, 20, 33, 40, 42, 52, 46, 57, 71). Evidentiary hearings are granted only 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 73 Filed 07/12/22 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

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

Respondent was directed to submit supplemental briefing and Petitioner recently submitted a 

response, but the Court has not yet reviewed the briefing. The Court will review the briefing and 

make findings and recommendations in due 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).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion for a teleconference (Doc. No. 68) is DENIED.

2. Petitioner’s motion to compel expert testimony in an evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 

69) is DENIED.

Dated: July 12, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 73 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 2