Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01001/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01001-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Clark
Respondent
Mario Tabarez
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO TABAREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN CLARK, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-1001 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[Doc. 13]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 13, 2007. 

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on October 12, 2007, and Petitioner filed a traverse on

November 13, 2007. On this same date, Petitioner also filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. 

(Court Doc. 13.) Respondent filed an opposition on November 27, 2007, and Petitioner filed a

reply on December 14, 2007. (Court Docs. 14, 15.) 

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

Case 1:07-cv-01001-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 01/04/08 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

2

fact has not reliably found the relevant facts. See, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103

(9 Cir.1992). As the function of an evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact, Townsend v. th

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. 

Petitioner’s motion consists of allegations of legal error. 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 3, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01001-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 2