Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01253/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01253-9/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 The Court has addressed Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel by separate order. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN DESHAWN FARMER,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1253 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

[Doc. 42]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 3, 2005.

Petitioner filed an amended petition on April 21, 2006. (Court Doc. 22.) Respondent filed an

answer to the amended petition on July 7, 2006, and Petitioner filed a traverse on September 29,

2006. 

On August 24, 2007, Petitioner file d a motion for an evidentiary hearing, and a motion

for the appointment of counsel. (Court Docs. 42, 43.) In his motion for an evidentiary hearing, 1

Petitioner contends that because he has raised several claims that are outside the record an

evidentiary hearing is necessary. 

Rule 8(a) 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

Case 1:05-cv-01253-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 09/21/07 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 In fact, the Court has simultaneously directed Petitioner to either submit a completed in forma pauperis 2

application or pay the $5.00 filing fee. 

2

are filed, shall, upon review of those proceedings, determine 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 Cir.1992). As the function of an evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact, Townsend v. Sain th

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. 

The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to resolve the merits of a factual dispute. In the

instant case, the Court has yet to review the instant petition and until a thorough review of the

merits of Petitioner’s claims, it cannot be determined that a factual dispute necessitating an

evidentiary hearing is present. Following a thorough review of the petition’s merits, the Court 2

will sua sponte issue an order for an evidentiary hearing should it find one necessary.

Accordingly, the request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED, without prejudice to

renewing it at the appropriate time.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 20, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01253-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 2