Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02114/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02114-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Otis Eugene Bunn, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-2114-PHX-GMS (LOA)

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Requests for Evidentiary Hearing and

Oral Argument. (Doc. 17) Respondents have filed an Opposition to Motion for Evidentiary

Hearing, and Petitioner has filed a Reply. (Docs. 18, 19)

On October 11, 2013, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation in this case, recommending Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

be denied as untimely because it was not filed within with the applicable statute of limitations

period. (Doc. 20) In a separately filed motion, Petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing on

his claims. (Doc. 17) Specifically, Petitioner’s motion focuses on his claim in Ground One of

the Petition, which alleges a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of

interest. Petitioner seeks to present evidence pertaining to that claim. (Id.)

As the Report and Recommendation indicates, this Magistrate Judge did not reach the

merits of any of Petitioner’s claims because the record clearly shows the Petition was untimely

filed. (Doc. 20) Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing on the merits of Petitioner’s claims is

unnecessary. See Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2005) (a habeas petitioner is

Case 2:12-cv-02114-GMS Document 21 Filed 10/17/13 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 -

not entitled to an evidentiary hearing where his petition fails to raise any colorable claims for

relief) The request for an evidentiary hearing will be denied.

Likewise, Petitioner’s request for oral argument will be denied. The Court has

discretion to grant or deny a request for oral argument. See LRCiv. 7.2(f) (“The Court may

decide motions without oral argument.”); see also Mahon v. Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc.,

171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999); Spradlin v. Lear Siegler Management Services Co., 926

F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that denial of request for oral argument is reviewed for

abuse of discretion). Here, in light of the clear record showing the Petition was untimely, the

Court finds no basis to hold oral argument on the instant motion. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Requests for Evidentiary Hearing and Oral

Argument,” doc. 17, is DENIED. 

DATED this 17th day of October, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02114-GMS Document 21 Filed 10/17/13 Page 2 of 2