Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00513/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00513-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gloria Henry
Respondent
Debbie Ann Lowe
Petitioner

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBBIE ANN LOWE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

GLORIA HENRY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 045-0513 REC WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR NEW TRIAL

[Doc. 4]

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY

HEARING

[Doc. 5]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 19, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for a new

trial. There is no procedure for the filing of such a motion within a petition for writ of

habeas corpus and such a separate request is unnecessary. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion

for a new trial is HEREBY DENIED as duplicative of her petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Also on April 19, 2005, 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

Case 1:05-cv-00513-LJO-WMW Document 13 Filed 02/17/06 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 2

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 found the relevant facts. See, Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9

th 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. 

 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: February 16, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00513-LJO-WMW Document 13 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2