Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01061/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01061-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL VICTORY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

G. LEWIS, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-1061 JSW (PR)

ORDER REGARDING PENDING

MOTIONS

(Docket Nos. 30, 32, 36) 

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed a habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state

conviction. On March 15, 2004, this Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the

petition should not be granted (docket no. 8). The Court subsequently entered a stay and

administratively closed the case pending Petitioner’s exhaustion of his additional claims

in the state courts. Thereafter, Petitioner filed an amended petition. The Court reopened

the case and ordered Respondent to show cause why the amended petition should not be

granted. On May 25, 2007, Respondent filed an answer to the petition, a memorandum in

support thereof and exhibits. 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed two motions seeking an extension of time to file a

traverse (docket nos. 30, 32), and on July 23, 2007, a traverse to Respondent’s answer. 

Petitioner’s motions are GRANTED (docket nos. 30, 32) and the traverse is deemed

timely. 

Case 3:03-cv-01061-JSW Document 37 Filed 01/29/08 Page 1 of 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 2

On August 6, 2007, Petitioner also filed a motion seeking an evidentiary hearing,

discovery and appointment of counsel for the hearing (docket no. 36). In the motion,

Petitioner elaborates on the potential testimony he seeks to elicit regarding defense

counsel’s ineffective representation at his trial. However, Petitioner has not specified

whether he failed to develop the factual basis for his claims in state court.

Under the AEDPA, a district court presented with a request for an evidentiary

hearing must determine whether a factual basis exists in the record to support the

petitioner's claim. If it does not, and an evidentiary hearing might be appropriate, the

court's first task in determining whether to grant an evidentiary hearing is to ascertain

whether the petitioner has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in state court. 

If so, the court must deny a hearing unless the petitioner establishes one of the two

narrow exceptions set forth in § 2254(e)(2). Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1078

(9th Cir. 1999); see, e.g., Bragg v. Galaza, 242 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir.), amended, 253

F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (court of appeals precluded from remanding case for an

evidentiary hearing, despite concerns about gaps in the record, where petitioner failed to

develop the factual basis for his claim in state court). If, on the other hand, the petitioner

has not failed to develop the facts in state court, the district court may proceed to

consider whether a hearing is appropriate or required under Townsend v. Swain, 372 U.S.

293 (1963), modified by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992). Baja, 187 F.3d at

1078.

A prisoner “fails” to develop the factual basis of a claim, triggering § 2254(e)(2),

if “there is lack of diligence, or some greater fault, attributable to the prisoner or the

prisoner’s counsel.” Williams (Michael) v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 432 (2000). 

“Diligence will require in the usual case that the prisoner, at a minimum, seek an

evidentiary hearing in state court in the manner prescribed by state law.” Id. at 437. In

California, an appellate court presented with a state habeas petition determines whether

an evidentiary hearing is warranted only after “formal pleadings” are ordered, if they are. 

Case 3:03-cv-01061-JSW Document 37 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 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 3

Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 582 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). If the state court denies the

petition without ordering formal pleadings, the case never reaches the stage where an

evidentiary hearing must be requested, and the petitioner’s failure to request such a

hearing in state court does not trigger § 2254(e)(2). Id.

That an evidentiary hearing is permitted because a prisoner was able to clear the

hurdle posed by § 2254(e)(2) does not mean that a hearing is required. Downs v. Hoyt,

232 F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court retains discretion whether to hold

such an evidentiary hearing. The standard pre-AEDPA for determining whether a

federal evidentiary hearing is required is if: (1) petitioner's allegations, if proven, would

establish the right to relief, and (2) the state court trier of fact has not, after a full and fair

hearing, reliably found the relevant facts. Williams v. Calderon, 52 F.3d 1465, 1484 (9th

Cir. 1995); Jeffries v. Blodgett, 5 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 1993). 

In this case, Petitioner has not specified whether he failed to develop the factual

basis for his claims in state court under the AEDPA standard. Therefore, Petitioner's

request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a

properly substantiated motion identifying how he attempted to develop the factual basis

for his claims in state court (docket no. 36). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 29, 2008

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-01061-JSW Document 37 Filed 01/29/08 Page 3 of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LEWIS,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV03-01061 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 29, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Christopher William Grove

Attorney at Law

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102

Michael Victory

CDC P-07048

Pleasant Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 8500

Coalinga, CA 93210

Dated: January 29, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:03-cv-01061-JSW Document 37 Filed 01/29/08 Page 4 of 4