Perez v. Bitter
Filing
40
ORDER Deferring Consideration Of Petitioner's Motions For An Evidentiary Hearing And For Expansion Of The Record Until The Court Considers The Merits Of The Petition (Doc. 37 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/13/2013. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CESAR MELGOZA PEREZ,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
16
17
v.
M. D. BITER, Warden,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:11-cv—01766-LJO-SKO-HC
ORDER DEFERRING CONSIDERATION OF
PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND FOR
EXPANSION OF THE RECORD UNTIL THE
COURT CONSIDERS THE MERITS OF THE
PETITION (DOC. 37)
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
19
forma pauperis with a second amended petition for writ of habeas
20
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The matter has been
21
referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
22
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303.
Pending before the
23
Court are Petitioner’s requests for 1) an evidentiary hearing
24
with oral argument and appointment of counsel for the evidentiary
25
hearing, and 2) expansion of the record.
Petitioner’s motions
26
were filed on December 10, 2012.
Respondent filed an opposition
27
on December 31, 2012; Petitioner did not file a reply.
28
1
1
I.
2
Petitioner challenges his conviction of first degree murder,
Background
3
alleging that he suffered numerous violations of his
4
constitutional rights during his pretrial and trial proceedings.
5
The second amended petition was filed on or about June 20, 2012.
6
Respondent filed an answer on September 20, 2012; Petitioner
7
filed a traverse on December 14, 2012.
8
reflects that Petitioner’s claims appear to have been adjudicated
9
on the merits by the state courts.
Review of the answer
10
In his motions for an evidentiary hearing and expansion of
11
the record, Petitioner seeks to add to the record a declaration
12
to present the testimony of a person who will verify that at the
13
time of the incident in question, Petitioner was not the shooter.
14
Petitioner further seeks to add his own declaration to establish
15
he was not armed with a firearm, did not discharge a firearm, did
16
not commit the charged murder, and was not associated with a
17
criminal street gang.
(Doc. 37, 1.)
18
II.
19
The decision to grant an evidentiary hearing is generally a
Legal Standards
20
matter left to the sound discretion of the district courts.
21
U.S.C. § 2254; Habeas Rule 8(a); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S.
22
465, 473 (2007).
23
docket and the disposition of its cases with economy of time and
24
effort for both the court and the parties.
25
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
26
963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).
27
28
28
A court has inherent power to control its
Landis v. North
Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the
effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
2
1
Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies to the petition.
2
Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d
3
1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997).
4
federal court under the AEDPA, a petitioner must allege a
5
colorable claim by alleging disputed facts which, if proved,
6
would entitle him to relief.
7
474.
8
9
Lindh v.
To obtain an evidentiary hearing in
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. at
The determination of entitlement to relief is limited by 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), which requires that to obtain relief with
10
respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court, the
11
adjudication must result in a decision that was either contrary
12
to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established
13
federal law.
14
analyzing a claim pursuant to § 2254(d)(1), a federal court is
15
limited to the record that was before the state court that
16
adjudicated the claim on the merits.
17
S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011).
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 474.
In
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131
18
Thus, when a state court record precludes habeas relief
19
under the limitations set forth in § 2254(d), a district court is
20
not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.
21
Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. at 1399 (citing Schriro v. Landrigan, 550
22
U.S. at 474); see, Stokley v. Ryan, 659 F.3d 802, 808-09 (9th
23
Cir. 2011), cert. den., 133 S.Ct. 134 (2012).
24
hearing may be granted with respect to a claim adjudicated on the
25
merits in state court where the petitioner satisfies
26
§ 2254(d)(1), or where § 2254(d)(1) does not apply, such as where
27
the claim was not adjudicated on the merits in state court.
28
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. at 1398, 1400-01.
3
Cullen v.
An evidentiary
1
An evidentiary hearing is not required where the state court
2
record resolves the issues, refutes the application’s factual
3
allegations, or otherwise precludes habeas relief.
4
Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 474.
5
for claims based on conclusory allegations.
6
F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir. 1994).
7
is not required if the claim presents a purely legal question,
8
there are no disputed facts, or the state court has reliably
9
found the relevant facts.
Schriro v.
No evidentiary hearing is required
Campbell v. Wood, 18
Likewise, an evidentiary hearing
Beardslee v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 560,
10
585-86 (9th Cir. 2004); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103
11
(9th Cir. 1992).
12
With respect to expansion of the record, pursuant to Cullen
13
v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, evidentiary materials that have
14
not been presented to the state courts are not relevant to an
15
analysis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) because review is
16
limited to the record that was before the state courts.
17
Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 767 n.2 (9th Cir. 2012), pet.
18
for cert. filed
19
III.
20
As the foregoing authorities reflect, in most instances it
21
is not possible to consider a motion for an evidentiary hearing
22
or expansion of the record before the merits of the petition are
23
considered.
24
on the merits because the Court has before it other petitions
25
that predate Petitioner’s petition and became ready for decision
26
before Petitioner’s second amended petition was fully briefed.
27
However, at this point in the proceedings, Petitioner’s claims
28
must be analyzed on the merits for the Court to determine whether
No. 12-894 (Nov. 15, 2012).
Analysis
Here, the Court has not reviewed Petitioner’s claims
4
1
Petitioner is entitled to relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
2
Further, from the pleadings, Petitioner’s claims may be subject
3
to resolution on the state court record, and thus further
4
evidence or development of the record would not be required.
5
Likewise, because the evidence Petitioner seeks to include in the
6
record was not before the state courts, it is not relevant to
7
this Court's analysis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
8
9
Accordingly, in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, it
is ORDERED that consideration of Petitioner’s motion for an
10
evidentiary hearing, oral argument, appointment of counsel for
11
the purpose of an evidentiary hearing, and expansion of the
12
record is DEFERRED until the merits of Petitioner’s case are
13
considered.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated:
ie14hj
February 13, 2013
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?