Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00547/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00547-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. HICKMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

ANTHONY HEDGEPETH, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00547-LJO-SKO-HC

ORDER DEFERRING CONSIDERATION OF

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN

EVIDENTIARY HEARING UNTIL THE

MERITS OF THE PETITION ARE

CONSIDERED (DOC. 11)

ORDER DEEMING PETITIONER’S

MOTIONS TO BE IN PART MOTIONS FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Docs. 8, 11)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY PETITIONER’S REQUESTS FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Docs. 8, 11)

OBJECTIONS DEADLINE:

THIRTY (30 DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules

302 and 303. Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motion

for a court order filed on April 23, 2012, and Petitioner’s

supplemental motion for an evidentiary hearing and for an order

for law library access filed on May 2, 2012. 

I. Order Deferring Consideration of Petitioner’s

 Request for an Evidentiary Hearing 

In his motion filed on May 2, 2012, Petitioner requests an

1

Case 1:12-cv-00547-LJO-SKO Document 15 Filed 06/21/12 Page 1 of 6
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

evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 11, 4.)

The decision to grant an evidentiary hearing is generally a

matter left to the sound discretion of the district courts. 28

U.S.C. § 2254; Habeas Rule 8(a); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S.

465, 473 (2007). A court has inherent power to control its

docket and the disposition of its cases with economy of time and

effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v. North

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). 

To obtain an evidentiary hearing in federal court under the

AEDPA, a petitioner must allege a colorable claim by alleging

disputed facts which, if proved, would entitle him to relief. 

Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 474. The determination of

entitlement to relief is, in turn, is limited by 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d)(1), which requires that to obtain relief with respect to

a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court, the

adjudication must result in a decision that was either contrary

to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established

federal law. Id. Further, in analyzing a claim pursuant to 

§ 2254(d)(1), a federal court is limited to the record that was

before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. 

Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011). 

Thus, when a state court record precludes habeas relief

under the limitations set forth in § 2254(d), a district court is

not required to hold an evidentiary hearing. Cullen v.

Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. at 1399 (citing Schriro v. Landrigan, 550

U.S. at 474). An evidentiary hearing may be granted with respect

to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court where the

2

Case 1:12-cv-00547-LJO-SKO Document 15 Filed 06/21/12 Page 2 of 6
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

petitioner satisfies § 2254(d)(1), or where § 2254(d)(1) does not

apply, such as where the claim was not adjudicated on the merits

in state court. Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. at 1398, 1400-

01.

An evidentiary hearing is not required where the state court

record resolves the issues, refutes the application’s factual

allegations, or otherwise precludes habeas relief. Schriro v.

Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 474. No evidentiary hearing is required

for claims based on conclusory allegations. Campbell v. Wood, 18

F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir. 1994). Likewise, an evidentiary hearing

is not required if the claim presents a purely legal question,

there are no disputed facts, or the state court has reliably

found the relevant facts. Beardslee v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 560,

585-86 (9th Cir. 2004); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103

(9th Cir. 1992).

Thus, in most instances, it is not possible to consider a

motion for an evidentiary hearing before the merits of the

petition are considered. In the present case, Respondent has not

yet responded to the petition. Because the case is not fully

briefed or ready for decision on the merits, it is not yet

possible to rule on Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary

hearing.

Accordingly, in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, it

is ORDERED that consideration of Petitioner’s motion for an

evidentiary hearing is DEFERRED until the merits of Petitioner’s

case are considered.

///

/// 

3

Case 1:12-cv-00547-LJO-SKO Document 15 Filed 06/21/12 Page 3 of 6
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

II. Deeming Motions to be in Part Requests for

 Injunctive Relief

In the motion for a court order filed on April 23, 2012,

Petitioner complains of having only several hours of law library

access biweekly. Petitioner requests affirmative relief in the

form of orders to prison staff to permit Petitioner to have

expanded access to the law library. In the motion for an

evidentiary hearing and request for court order filed on May 2,

2012, Petitioner similarly seeks expanded access to the law

library. The Court thus DEEMS the motions to be in part requests

for injunctive relief.

III. Motions for Injunctive Relief 

On April 23, 2012, Respondent was directed to file a

response to the petition. Petitioner contends that Respondent is

represented by attorneys and that Petitioner will suffer a

disadvantage if he does not have expanded access to the law

library. Petitioner complains of the prison systems' extending

expanded law library access only to prisoners who can demonstrate

that they were are within thirty days of a deadline for a court

filing. Petitioner requests this Court to direct the prison

staff to give Petitioner expanded law library access as if he

were under such a deadline.

After reading the motions in their entirety, the Court

concludes that it is clear that Petitioner is challenging the

conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that

confinement. 

A federal court may only grant a state prisoner’s petition

for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is

4

Case 1:12-cv-00547-LJO-SKO Document 15 Filed 06/21/12 Page 4 of 6
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 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties

of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus

petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the

legality or duration of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d

573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 485 (1973)); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, 1976 Adoption.

In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the

conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S.

136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at

574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, 1976 Adoption. 

Because in the motions Petitioner seeks to challenge the

conditions of his confinement, and not the legality or duration

of his confinement, Petitioner’s claims concerning law library

access are cognizable in a civil rights action rather than a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Accordingly, it will be recommended that the motions for

injunctive relief be denied.

IV. Recommendation

In accordance with the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that:

1) Petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief be DENIED. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant

to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

5

Case 1:12-cv-00547-LJO-SKO Document 15 Filed 06/21/12 Page 5 of 6
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

being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) days if

served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will

then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 1:12-cv-00547-LJO-SKO Document 15 Filed 06/21/12 Page 6 of 6