Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00221/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00221-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rolando Solis
Petitioner
J. Yates
Respondent

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLANDO SOLIS,

Petitioner,

v.

J. YATES,

Respondent.

 /

1: 07 CV 00221 OWW WMW HC

ORDER DENY ING MOTION FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[Doc. 5]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. On February 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing.

Rule 8(a) 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. 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: (1) the allegations, if

established, would entitle the petitioner to relief; and (2) the state court trier of fact has not reliably

Case 1:07-cv-00221-JMD Document 16 Filed 06/05/07 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

found the relevant facts. See, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9 Cir.1992). As the th

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. 

 As the Court has yet to review the merits of petitioner’s claim, it is unable to determine

whether there is a disputed issue of fact that requires an evidentiary hearing. 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, the request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00221-JMD Document 16 Filed 06/05/07 Page 2 of 2