Opinion ID: 206145
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Next Steps.

Text: To this point, we have explained that the record as it stands is too tenebrous to permit a reasoned answer to any of the three questions framed in the COA. A further question remains: Where do we go from here? A habeas petitioner has the burden of adducing facts sufficient to show both that his petition should be treated as timely and that he is entitled to relief. See, e.g., Riva, 615 F.3d at 39 (stating that habeas petitioner bears the burden of establishing the basis for equitable tolling); Gonzalez-Soberal v. United States, 244 F.3d 273, 277 (1st Cir.2001) (explaining that petitioner pressing ineffective assistance claim in section 2255 motion is required to establish entitlement to relief by preponderance of the evidence). But the situation in this case is highly idiosyncratic; the issues are tangled and the events at issue span many years. Moreover, the petitioner persistently requested an evidentiary hearing to develop the facts relevant to his claims. Those requests were uniformly denied. An evidentiary hearing may be available in connection with a section 2255 petition. See Rule 8, Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. While a petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing as a matter of right, David v. United States, 134 F.3d 470, 477 (1st Cir. 1998), an evidentiary hearing sometimes serves the ends of justice. We think that this is such a case. The circumstances are exceptional; and the situation is complicated by the nuanced nature of the questions presented, the inherent difficulty of obtaining reliable information needed to answer those questions, the petitioner's limited proficiency in the English language, the absence of counsel during several critical periods, the sheer passage of time, and the participation of multiple district judges. [4] Habeas courts should be guided by equitable principles. See Holland, 130 S.Ct. at 2560. Here we believe that the fairest and best way to proceed is to direct the district court, on remand, to hold an evidentiary hearing. Such a hearing will help to provide a fuller picture of the relevant facts and the tangled issues.