Thomas v. Yates

Filing 92

ORDER denying 88 Motion for order shortening time and denying 89 Motion to vacate evidentiary hearing signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 4/20/2011. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 BRIAN THOMAS,
10

Petitioner,

11

v.

12 JAMES A. YATES,
13

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:05-CV-01198 LJO DLB HC
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME
(Doc. 88)
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO VACATE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING (Doc. 89)

14 )
15
16
Petitioner Brian Thomas (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ
17
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
18
On April 7, 2011, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing to be held on May 10, 2011 in
19
order to permit Petitioner to present evidence that article V, section 8(b) of the California Constitution
20
creates a significant risk of prolonging Petitioner's incarceration and therefore violates Petitioner's
21
rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. See Doc. No. 87.
22
On April 13, 2011, Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate the Evidentiary Hearing with its
23
concurrent Motion for an Order Shortening Time to hear the Motion to Vacate the Evidentiary
24
Hearing. See Doc. Nos. 88 & 89. On April 14, 2011, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s
25
motions. See Doc No. 90. On April 18, 2011, Respondent filed a reply. See Doc. 91. The court has
26
reviewed the papers and has determined that these matters are suitable for decision without oral
27
argument. See Local Rule 230(g).
28
U .S. D istrict Court
E . D . California

1

1
2
3

DISCUSSION

4

Respondent contends that the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Cullen v.

5 Pinholster, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1388, ___ L.Ed.2d ___, 2011 WL 1225705, (Apr. 4, 2011)
6 (“Cullen”), precludes this Court from conducting an evidentiary hearing because any evidence adduced
7 at hearing has “no bearing on the Court’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) review.” See Doc. 89 at 3. According
8 to Respondent, the Court is “limited to deciding the habeas claims solely on the record that was
9 presented to the state court.” Id. at 3. The Undersigned does not agree. Though its premise is
10 correct, Respondent’s conclusion lacks merit.
11

As noted by Respondent, the Cullen Court held: “[i]f a claim has been adjudicated on the

12 merits by a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the limitations of § 2254(d)(1) on
13 the record that was before that state court." Cullen at 10. However, once a petitioner overcomes the
14 limitations imposed by § 2254(d)(1), nothing in Cullen suggests that the Court is then limited to
15 “deciding the habeas claims on the record” as Respondent’s suggests. See Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F.3d
16 724, 739 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating: “[t]o identify a § 2254(d)(1) “contrary to” error, we analyze the
17 [state] court's actual reasoning, . . . . Identification of such an error is not the end of a federal habeas
18 court's analysis, however, . . . we must also evaluate de novo the petitioner's constitutional claims,
19 without limiting ourselves to the reasoning of the state court”); Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930,
20 953 (2007).
21

Petitioner’s Opposition correctly states that: “both the magistrate judge previously assigned to

22 this case and the assigned district judge have already found that Petitioner has overcome ‘the limitation
23 of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),’ and both did so ‘on the record that was before the state court.’”1 See
24 Doc. 90 at 2; see also Doc. 27, (March 19, 2009 Order Setting Evidentiary Hearing) and Doc. 33
25 (June 17, 2009 Order Denying Respondent’s Request for Dismissal and Motion for Reconsideration
26
27
28

1

The Court’s June 17, 2009 Order (Doc. 33), specifically rejected Respondent’s argument that the state court’s
decision denying Petitioner’s state habeas petition was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established
federal law. See Doc. 33 at 10-14.

U .S. D istrict Court
E . D . California

2

1 and Directing Reschedule of Evidentiary Hearing.)
2

Accordingly, the Court’s scheduled evidentiary hearing will proceed as scheduled so that

3 Petitioner may present evidence in support of his constitutional claim.
4
5

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1) Respondent’s Motion for Order Shortening Time to Hear the Motion to Vacate is DENIED.

7

2) Respondent’s Motion to Vacate the Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED.

8
9
10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:
ah0l4d

April 20, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U .S. D istrict Court
E . D . California

3