Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06431/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06431-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN ELLIS PORTER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DERRAL ADAMS, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 03-6431 WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY

HEARING

[Doc. 43 ]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. This case is stayed pursuant to an order entered

March 16, 2006, granting Petitioner’s request for a stay pending exhaustion of his claims at

the California Supreme Court.

On March 27, 2006, Petitioner filed a request for an evidentiary hearing. Rule 8(a)

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 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

Case 1:03-cv-06431-WMW Document 44 Filed 03/29/06 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

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

th Cir.1992). As the 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 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: March 29, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06431-WMW Document 44 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2