Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00999/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00999-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Respondent
Derreck Sunderland
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

DERRECK SUNDERLAND, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

 )

1:06-cv-00999-LJO-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

(Doc. 8) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Doc. 8)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND

PETITION BY INTERLINEATION (Doc. 5)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 1, 2006, the instant petition was filed. (Doc. 1). On October 30, 2006,

Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition to reflect that his answer to question number 17

on the form petition should be “no.” (Doc. 5). On April 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for an

evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 8). 

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 relevant facts. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103

Case 1:06-cv-00999-LJO-JMD Document 9 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 3
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

(9th Cir.1992). As 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

(1993)), such a hearing is unnecessary when only issues of law are raised. Id. 

In this case, Petitioner contends that Respondent’s application of the “some evidence”

standard has deprived him of the benefits of his plea bargain in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Although this appears to be simply a question of law, the Court has

not yet conducted its preliminary screening of the petition. After the Court has conducted said

screening, the Court may order Respondent to file a response or, alternatively, if some defect

appears in the petition itself, the Court may order Petitioner to amend the petition or take some

other action. The Court, however, has not yet conducted such a review, nor has the Court yet

ordered Respondent to file a response. Respondent has yet even to enter an appearance in this

case. The case is not in a posture for the Court to proceed to a consideration of the merits of the

petition. Thus, whether or not there exists a factual dispute of the type that warrants an

evidentiary hearing cannot be made at this early point in the proceedings. 

If and when the case is in a posture where the Court will consider the merits, and

following a thorough review of those merits, the Court will sua sponte issue an order for an

evidentiary hearing should it find one necessary. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for an

Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. 

Regarding Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, there currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze,

258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1984). However,

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the

interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the

present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of

counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request

for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

Regarding Petitioner’s motion to amend, a petitioner may amend a petition for writ of

habeas corpus once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of Court, before a response has

Case 1:06-cv-00999-LJO-JMD Document 9 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), as applied to habeas corpus actions

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Calderon

v. United States District Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir. 1998); Bonin v. Calderon,

59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of court is required for all other amendments. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a). 

Here, no response has as yet been filed. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to amend his

petition once as a matter of right. The Court construes Petitioner’s motion to amend as a request

to amend the original petition by interlineation rather than by the filing of an amended petition. 

Petitioner’s motion to amend is GRANTED; the Petition is hereby amended to reflect that the

answer to question number 17 on the form petition is “no.” 

ORDER

Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE appearing therefor, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as

follows:

1. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 8), is DENIED;

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 8), is DENIED; and,

3. Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition by interlineation (Doc. 5), is GRANTED. 

The original petition is amended to reflect that the answer to question number 17 is “no.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00999-LJO-JMD Document 9 Filed 04/23/07 Page 3 of 3