Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01619/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01619-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Eugene Farias
Petitioner
Kelly Santoro
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

Petitioner filed a request for evidentiary hearing on June 27, 2016. Respondent did not file an 

opposition. Petitioner states he has set forth his claims in a “colorable” fashion; therefore, an 

evidentiary hearing should be granted to resolve factual issues in this case. The Court disagrees and 

will DENY the motion.

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 and after the answer and transcripts and record of the 

state court proceedings are filed, the Court shall review those records to 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 (9th

Cir.1992). As the function of an evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact, such a hearing is 

unnecessary when only issues of law are raised. Townsend v. Swain, 372 U.S. 293, 309 (1963).

RICHARD EUGENE FARIAS,

 Petitioner,

v.

KELLY SANTORO,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01619-DAD-JLT (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

(Doc. 25)

Case 1:15-cv-01619-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Nevertheless, in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011), the United States Supreme Court 

held that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that 

adjudicated the prisoner’s claim on the merits. The Court held that the provision’s “backward-looking 

language requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made.” Id., at 181-182. 

Thus, § 2254(d)(1) requires federal courts to “focu[s] on what a state court knew and did,” and to 

measure state-court decisions “against this Court’s precedents as of ‘the time the state court renders its 

decision.’” Id. at 182 (quoting Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. at 71-72 (emphasis in original). 

Although the Supreme Court stopped short of deciding whether a district court could ever 

conduct an evidentiary hearing unless it had previously determined that § 2254(d) had not been 

satisfied, it is quite clear from the high court’s decision that holding an evidentiary hearing to find 

facts never previously presented to the state court would be an extremely rare occurrence and that the 

AEDPA’s statutory scheme is designed to discourage such hearings. Id. at 186. Petitioner has made 

no showing that this case is that rare occurrence, or that this case otherwise requires an evidentiary 

hearing. Accordingly, the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing. 

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing (Doc. 25) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01619-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 2