Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01265/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01265-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Loretta Greer, ) 

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIV 04-1265 PHX JAT (VAM)

)

Attorney General, et al., ) ORDER

 )

)

 Respondents.)

Pending before the Court is petitioner's Motion for an

Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 165).

Petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)

severely restricts a court's discretion to grant an evidentiary

hearing. Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The statute imposes "an express limitation on the power of a

federal court to grant an evidentiary hearing .. and [has] reduced

considerably the degree of a district court's discretion." Baja,

187 F.3d at 1078 (quoting Cardwell v. Greene, 152 F.3d 331, 336

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 587 (1998). Section

2254(e)(2) provides, in pertinent part:

If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis

of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall

not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the

applicant shows that

(A) the claim relies on

Case 2:04-cv-01265-JAT Document 170 Filed 11/09/05 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 2

 (i) a new rule of constitutional law; made retroactive

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that

was previously unavailable; or

 (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been

previously discovered through the exercise of due

diligence; and

(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient

to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but

for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would

have found the applicant guilty of the underlying

offense.

An exception to these requirements exists if a petitioner

demonstrates he attempted to develop a factual basis for a claim

in state court but was denied the opportunity to do so by the

state court. Baja, 187 F.3d at 1078.

The motion submitted by petitioner is confusing and

incoherent. Petitioner does not state with any clarity how the

grievances outlined in her motion relate to her claims for habeas

relief. In addition, she does not indicate, let alone demonstrate

that she attempted to develop the factual basis for the issues in

state court but was denied the opportunity to do so. For all

these reasons, the motion for an evidentiary hearing will be

denied without prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for an

Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 165) is denied without prejudice.

DATED this 8th of November, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-01265-JAT Document 170 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2