Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00856/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00856-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES BRADLEY HAAG,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES TILTON, Director of Corrections

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-00856 LJO DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

[Doc. 4]

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 on June 14, 2007. On this same date, Petitioner filed a

motion for an evidentiary hearing. (Court Doc. 4.) 

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

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.

Case 1:07-cv-00856-DLB Document 11 Filed 07/23/07 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

2

1715 (1993)), such a hearing is unnecessary when only issues of law are raised. Id. 

In the instant case, although the Court is simultaneously directing Respondent to submit a

response to the petition, until the Court conducts a thorough review of the merits of Petitioner’s

claims, it cannot be determined if a factual dispute necessitating an evidentiary hearing is

required. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00856-DLB Document 11 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2