Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00740/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00740-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. Hedgpeth
Respondent
Gary Palmer
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY PALMER,

Petitioner,

v.

A. HEDGPETH,

Respondent.

 /

1: 07 CV 00740 LJO WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MO TIO N FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

[Doc. 17]

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

U.S.C. Section 2254. On May 14, 2008, 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 found the

Case 1:07-cv-00740-LJO-JMD Document 18 Filed 09/15/08 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

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

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: September 12, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00740-LJO-JMD Document 18 Filed 09/15/08 Page 2 of 2