Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-15/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-NONE-HBK

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Doc. No. 46)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RELEASE FROM CUSTODY

(Doc. No. 46)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

ON PETITIONER

ORDER TO FILE REPLY OR STAND ON 

INCORPORATED REPLY IN MOTION

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 is 

Petitioner’s “emergency motion for teleconference or actual court hearing” and “demand for 

immediate release,” which the Court construes as a motion for an evidentiary hearing and release 

from custody. (Doc. No. 46). As explained below, the Court denies Petitioner the relief 

requested in his motion and orders him to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for 

his continued filing of duplicitous motions.

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 47 Filed 07/12/21 Page 1 of 3
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

1. Court Construes Motion to Incorporate Petitioner’s Reply

At the outset, the Court notes the pleading is titled “Emergency Motions” and “Initial 

Reply to Respondent’s Answer.” (Doc. No. 46 at 1). In his pleading, Petitioner addresses 

Respondent’s Answer to the Petition and advances arguments in rebuttal to the Answer. (See 

generally Doc. No. 46). Thus, the Court construes this filing as incorporating Petitioner’s reply 

or traverse to Respondent’s Answer. Nonetheless, Petitioner fashions the pleading as his “Initial 

Reply to Respondent’s Answer.” (Id. at 1). The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases do not 

provide petitioners with multiple opportunities to reply to an answer. See R. Governing Section 

2254 Cases Rule 5(e). In an abundance of caution, the Court will permit Petitioner the 

opportunity to file a free-standing reply titled “Reply to Respondents’ Answer” within 21 days 

from receipt of this Order, to the extent Petitioner does not intend the pleading to incorporate his 

reply. 

2. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner seeks an emergency evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 42). Petitioner has 

previously moved for an evidentiary hearing five times, all of which have been denied. (Doc. 

Nos. 8, 20, 33, 40, 42). Evidentiary hearings are granted only under limited circumstances in 

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

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

2254 Cases, R. 8(a). 

3. Motion for Release from Custody

Incorporated within Petitioner’s motion is a second request for release from custody. 

(Doc. Nos. 42 at 1, 46 at 1). As stated in this Court’s June 8, 2021 order, “[b]ail pending a 

decision in a habeas case is reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a 

high probability of success.” Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318, 318 (9th Cir. 1989); (Doc. No. 44 at 

2). The Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated special circumstances warranting his release 

or a high probability of success on the merits of his petition. Accordingly, his request is denied.

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 47 Filed 07/12/21 Page 2 of 3
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

4. Order to Show Cause

Petitioner has filed multiple motions seeking the same forms of relief. (See e.g. Doc. Nos. 

6, 14, 18, 27, 31, 32, 34, 42). On May 26, 2021 and June 8, 2021, the Court warned the Petitioner 

if he persists in filing further repetitive motions, he may be subject to sanctions. (Doc. No. 40, 

44). Petitioner has again filed another duplicitous motion. Accordingly, the Court will order 

Petitioner to show cause why he should not be subject to sanctions.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

1. Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 46) is DENIED. 

2. Petitioner’s motion for release from custody (Doc. No. 46) is DENIED. 

3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of receipt of this order, Petitioner is ordered to 

show cause why he should not be subject to sanctions.

4. Within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this Order, Petitioner shall file a Reply to 

Respondent’s Answer. If Petitioner does not file a separate free-standing Reply, the Court 

will construe the reply incorporated in Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. No. 46) as his Reply to 

Respondent’s Answer to Petition. 

Dated: July 9, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 47 Filed 07/12/21 Page 3 of 3