Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00689-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Lopez
Petitioner
Jeanne Woodford
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW LOPEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-0689-OWW WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR HEARING

[Doc. 4]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 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

Case 1:06-cv-00689-OWW -WMW Document 8 Filed 02/01/07 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 2

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 Cir.1992). As th

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: January 31, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00689-OWW -WMW Document 8 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 2