Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01367/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01367-2/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

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

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. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), the parties have 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed 

by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on 

September 3, 2013, and on behalf of Respondent on November 15, 2013.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary 

hearing that was filed along with Petitioner’s traverse on April 10, 

2014.

MELVIN WARD,

 Petitioner,

v.

BRIAN DUFFY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01367-SKO-HC

ORDER DEFERRING CONSIDERATION OF 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING UNTIL THE COURT 

CONSIDERS THE MERITS OF THE 

PETITION (DOC. 22) 

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 23 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 4
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 the petition, Petitioner challenges a criminal judgment 

based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence.

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). 

Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the 

effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 

of 1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies to the petition. Lindh v. 

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 

1499 (9th Cir. 1997). 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, 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. 

Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 474. 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, -U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 

(2011). When a state court record resolves the issues or precludes 

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 23 Filed 09/03/14 Page 2 of 4
3

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

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); see, Stokley v. Ryan, 659 F.3d 802, 

808-09 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. den., 133 S.Ct. 134 (2012). 

Similarly, 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).

With respect to expansion of the record, pursuant to the 

principles announced in Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 

evidentiary materials that have not been presented to the state 

courts are not relevant to an analysis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d) because review is limited to the record that was before the 

state courts. Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 767 n.2 (9th Cir. 

2012), cert. den. 133 S.Ct. 2766 (2013). In most instances, it is 

not possible to consider a motion for an evidentiary hearing or 

expansion of the record before the merits of the petition are 

considered. 

Here, the Court has not reviewed Petitioner’s claims on the 

merits because the Court has before it other petitions that predate 

Petitioner’s petition and which are ready for decision before 

Petitioner’s petition was fully briefed. However, at this juncture 

in the proceedings, Petitioner’s claims must be analyzed on the 

merits in order for the Court to determine whether Petitioner is 

entitled to relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). From the 

pleadings, it is possible that Petitioner’s claims are subject to 

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 23 Filed 09/03/14 Page 3 of 4
4

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

resolution on the state court record, and thus further evidence or 

development of the record would not be required.

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 23 Filed 09/03/14 Page 4 of 4