Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06338/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06338-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN H. CORNEALUS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-CV-06338 LJO HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[Doc. #24]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The parties having voluntarily consented to exercise of Magistrate

Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), by order dated March 3, 2005, this case was

assigned to the undersigned for all purposes, including entry of final judgment.

On July 31, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. Rule 8(a) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases 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. (Emphasis added.) 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: 

Case 1:04-cv-06338-GSA Document 25 Filed 08/17/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

(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 (9th

Cir.1992). As the function of an evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact, Townsend v. Swain 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. 

Initially, the Court must determine whether a factual basis exists in the record to support

Petitioner’s claim. Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9 Cir.1999). If the claims can be th

resolved by reference to the existing state court record, an evidentiary hearing will be regarded as

futile and will therefore be denied. Id.; Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9 Cir.1998) (same); th

Villafuerte v. Stewart, 111 F.3d 616, 633 (9 Cir.1997) (A petitioner’s request to have a federal court

th

hear the same evidence heard by the state court in the state habeas proceeding is not a valid reason

for an evidentiary hearing.); Campbell v. Wood, 18 F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir.1994) (An evidentiary

hearing is not required on issues that can be resolved by reference to the state court record.).

In this case, a factual basis exists in the trial record to support each of Petitioner’s several

claims. More importantly, the factual basis for each claim was sufficiently developed at trial, and

this Court can resolve Petitioner’s claims with reference to the state court record. Petitioner argues

that an evidentiary hearing should be held on all claims; however, he does not claim the existence of

any new evidence that would merit an evidentiary hearing. A federal evidentiary hearing would be

redundant and futile at this time. 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. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06338-GSA Document 25 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2