Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01367/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01367-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Duffy
Respondent
Melvin Ward
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

MELVIN WARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN DUFFY, Warden,

Defendant.

No. 1:13-cv-01367-SKO HC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Doc. 22)

In his traverse (Doc. 22), Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,1 moved for an 

evidentiary hearing.

In habeas proceedings, "an evidentiary hearing is not required on issues that can be 

resolved by reference to the state court record." Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 

1998). "It is axiomatic that when issues can be resolved with reference to the state court record, 

an evidentiary hearing becomes nothing more than a futile exercise." Id. at 1176.

Petitioner's claims concern (claim 1) the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial to 

constitute due process in his state court conviction for threatening a correctional officer in 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), both parties consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States 

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 24 Filed 09/09/15 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

violation of California Penal Code § 422 and (claims 2-4) the constitutionality of a threat 

conviction based on a psychologist's issuance of a warning under Tarasoff v. Regents of 

University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425 (1976). Because all four claims require legal, not 

evidentiary, analysis, an evidentiary hearing for additional factual development is not necessary.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for an evidentiary hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 24 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2