Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05237/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05237-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID NEDLEY, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

D.L. RUNNELS,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-5237 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY

HEARING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(Docket No. 15)

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that he was denied ineffective assistance of counsel under the

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the

petition should not be granted. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition and Petitioner has

filed a traverse. On June 27, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court will DENY Petitioner’s motion without prejudice. 

An evidentiary hearing is held in federal habeas cases only under the most limited 

circumstances as articulated in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). 

See Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1077-79 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1079

(2000). Under the AEDPA, a district court presented with a request for an evidentiary hearing

must determine whether a factual basis exists in the record to support the petitioner's claim. If it

does not, and an evidentiary hearing might be appropriate, the court's first task in determining

whether to grant an evidentiary hearing is to ascertain whether the petitioner has failed to develop

the factual basis of a claim in state court. If so, the court must deny a hearing unless the

petitioner establishes the following: (1) the claim relies on either (a) a new rule of constitutional

law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review, or (b) a factual

predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence,

and (2) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the

Case 3:03-cv-05237-JSW Document 17 Filed 01/10/06 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

applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); Baja, 187 F.3d at 1078. See,

e.g., Buckley v. Terhune, 397 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2005) (petitioner failed to satisfy 

§ 2254(e)(2) where the evidence he presented to the federal court was not “unknown or

unavailable to the petitioner in state court”); Bragg v. Galaza, 242 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir.),

amended by 253 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (court of appeals precluded from remanding case for

an evidentiary hearing, despite concerns about gaps in the record, where petitioner failed to

develop the factual basis for his claim in state court). If, on the other hand, the petitioner has not

failed to develop the facts in state court, the district court may proceed to consider whether a

hearing is appropriate, or required under Townsend v. Swain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963), modified by

Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992). Baja, 187 F.3d at 1078. 

In this case, Petitioner has failed to establish that his request for an evidentiary hearing

falls within the narrow exceptions to the rule limiting evidentiary hearings in habeas cases. 

Specifically, he offers no explanation why the evidence needed to support his ineffective

assistance claim could not have been developed during the course of the state proceedings. 

Moreover, even if further factual development is required, expansion of the record, rather than an

evidentiary, might be the appropriate route. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary

hearing (docket no. 15) is DENIED without prejudice. If the Court determines that further

factual development is necessary, it will revisit the issue whether an evidentiary hearing must be

held. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _1/10/06______________ 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05237-JSW Document 17 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 2