Souliotes v. Tilton

Filing 171

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/31/2013. (Case Management Deadline: 2/11/2013).(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10

GEORGE SOULIOTES,
Petitioner,

11
v.

12
13

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden,
Respondent.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:06-cv-00667 AWI MJS HC
ORDER

15
16

Each party is ORDERED to notify the Court within ten days of the date of filing of this

17

Order whether he requests an evidentiary hearing and the opportunity to present live testimony

18

with regard to Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Absent such a request

19

the Court shall proceed to rule on the merits of Souliotes' petition based on the facts and

20

evidence already submitted.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:
ci4d6

January 31, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Suprem e Court has held that "review under [28 U.S.C.] § 2254(d)(1) is lim ited to the record that was
before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the m erits." See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398
(2011). However, if it is determ ined the state court decision was contrary to or involving an unreasonable
application of clearly established federal law, the claim m ay be reviewed de novo, and the Court m ay consider
evidence properly presented for the first tim e in federal court if otherwise allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).
Hurles v. Ryan, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1305, 11-12 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013).

-1-