Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-21/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO CLARIFY

(Doc. No. 62)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO EXONERATE

(Doc. No. 65)

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Before the Court are

Petitioner’s Motion to Clarify and Motion to Exonerate. (Doc. Nos. 62, 65).

Petitioner’s “motion to clarify” attaches “information . . . to exhibit the further violations 

of [his] civil rights,” and contends that “the need for an evidentiary hearing is mandatory.” (Doc. 

No. 62). As an initial matter, evidentiary hearings are granted only under limited circumstances 

in habeas proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii). Although Respondent has filed an 

answer to the petition, the Court has not yet reviewed the briefing. The Court will review the 

briefing and make findings and recommendations in due course. If the Court determines that an 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 66 Filed 05/24/22 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

evidentiary hearing is warranted, it will schedule one at that time. See Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases, R. 8(a). 

Liberally construed, in both the Motion to Clarify and the Motion to Exonerate Petitioner 

appears to be attempting to expand on arguments in his petition. Neither the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules provide for the right to file additional pleadings outside those 

described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion to clarify (Doc. No. 62) is DENIED.

2. Petitioner’s motion to exonerate (Doc. No. 65) is DENIED.

Dated: May 23, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 66 Filed 05/24/22 Page 2 of 2