Haag v. Tilton

Filing 77

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 50 Motion Evidentiary Hearing signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/23/2009. (Figueroa, O)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 JAMES TILTON, Director of Corrections 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to 17 the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. This case is ready for review on the 18 merits. 19 Rule 8(a) provides that where a petition is not dismissed at a previous stage in the 20 proceeding, the judge, after the answer and transcripts and record of the state court proceedings 21 are filed, shall, upon review of those proceedings, determine whether an evidentiary hearing is 22 required. The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to resolve the merits of a factual dispute. An 23 evidentiary hearing on a claim is required where it is clear from the petition that: (1) the 24 allegations, if established, would entitle the petitioner to relief; and (2) the state court trier of 25 fact has not reliably found the relevant facts. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103 26 27 372 U.S. 293, 309 (1963)(overruled in part by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 28 1 (9th Cir.1992). As the function of an evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact, Townsend v. Sain / v. [Doc. 50] JAMES BRADLEY HAAG, Petitioner, 1:07-CV-00856 DLB HC ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

1715 (1993)), such a hearing is unnecessary when only issues of law are raised. Id. The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to resolve the merits of a factual dispute. In the instant case, the Court has yet to review the instant petition and until a thorough review of the merits of Petitioner's claims, it cannot be determined that a factual dispute necessitating an evidentiary hearing is present.1 Following a thorough review of the petition's merits, the Court will sua sponte issue an order for an evidentiary hearing should it find one necessary. Accordingly, the request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a

September 23, 2009

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In fact, the Court has simultaneously directed Petitioner to either submit a completed in forma pauperis a p p l i c a t i o n or pay the $5.00 filing fee.

1

2