Opinion ID: 509516
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District Court's Compliance With This Court's Prior Decision

Text: 106 Harris initially contends that this court ordered the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing upon remand in Harris I. Harris misconstrues our prior opinion. In our prior opinion, we stated in reference to Harris' discrimination claims:We do not believe that the State accorded Harris a full and fair hearing on these constitutional claims. Although we do not decide whether Harris has a right to a hearing in federal court under Pierce [v. Cardwell, 572 F.2d 1339, 1340-41 (9th Cir.1978) ], we believe that the district court should, if it becomes necessary, provide an opportunity to develop the factual basis and arguments concerning the race-discrimination and gender-discrimination claims. 107 692 F.2d at 1197. We also held that Harris' conclusory allegations in his age discrimination claim were insufficient to obtain a hearing in federal court.... absent some stronger showing. Id. at 1199. 108 Our order that an opportunity to develop the evidence if it becomes necessary, left the decision to the district court whether an evidentiary hearing would be required. See Shaw v. Martin, 733 F.2d 304, 313 (4th Cir.) (defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his contention that South Carolina's death penalty statute was discriminatorily applied because [t]he proffered evidence would not have been of sufficient probative value on the issue of discriminatory intent to have required response, and no evidentiary hearing was therefore required) (citing United States v. Duncan, 598 F.2d 839, 869 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871, 100 S.Ct. 148, 62 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 230, 83 L.Ed.2d 159 (1984). The district court, on remand, permitted Harris to submit updated statistical studies and declarations on his discrimination allegations. It was under no compulsion from this court to hold an evidentiary hearing. 109