Hubbard v. Corcoran State Prison (4B)

Filing 49

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 48 Motion for Trial; ORDER Disregarding as Moot Petitioner's 45 Motion to Correct Information in Lodging of Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/17/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ZANE HUBBARD,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.
CONNIE GIPSON,
Respondent.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR TRIAL (Doc. 48)
ORDER DISREGARDING AS MOOT
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CORRECT
INFORMATION IN LODGING OF DOCUMENTS
(Doc. 45)

17
18

The petitioner filed this action on October 23, 2013. (Doc. 1). On September 2, 2015,

19

Respondent filed the Answer. (Doc. 41). Soon thereafter, Respondent filed a Notice of Lodging

20

Documents in Paper. (Doc. 44). On October 26, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion to correct

21

the Notice of Lodging Documents, citing various errors and omissions in the document filed by

22

Respondent. (Doc. 45). On November 2, 2015, Respondent filed a Supplemental Notice of Lodging

23

Documents in Paper, correcting the previous errors and providing additional documents omitted in the

24

original. (Doc. 47). Petitioner filed no further objections. Accordingly, the issue appears to be moot

25

and the motion will be disregarded.

26

On August 12, 2016, while the case is awaiting a decision on the merits, Petitioner filed the

27

instant motion requesting a trial. (Doc. 48). No provision exists in federal habeas law for the Court to

28

conduct a “trial.” Routinely, the issues are disposed on the merits based upon the documents in the
1

1

Court’s file and the record of lodged documents. This is so because, under the Anti-Terrorism and

2

Effective Death Penalty Act, which governs federal habeas proceedings for state prisoners, there are

3

no facts to be determined by the Court and the only issue is whether the state court adjudication is

4

contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the

5

United States Supreme Court, or that “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light

6

of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade,

7

538 U.S. 63, 70-71 (2003). Because these are legal standards that require no fact-finding, no trial is

8

warranted or permitted.

9

However, liberally construing Petitioner’s request as one for an evidentiary hearing, the Court

10

must also deny that request. Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that where

11

a petition is not dismissed at a previous stage in the proceeding, the Court, after the answer and

12

transcripts and record of the state court proceedings are filed, shall, upon review of those proceedings,

13

determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to

14

resolve the merits of a factual dispute. An evidentiary hearing on a claim is required where it is clear

15

from the petition that: (1) the allegations, if established, would entitle the petitioner to relief; and (2)

16

the state court trier of fact has not reliably found the relevant facts. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974

17

F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.1992). As the function of an evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact,

18

Townsend v. Swain 372 U.S. 293, 309 (1963)(overruled in part by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504

19

U.S. 1 (1993)), such a hearing is unnecessary when, as here, only issues of law are raised. Id.

20

Moreover, in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011), the United States Supreme Court held

21

that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated

22

the prisoner’s claim on the merits. The Court held that the provision’s “backward-looking language

23

requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made.” Id., at 181-182. Thus, §

24

2254(d)(1) requires federal courts to “focu[s] on what a state court knew and did,” and to measure

25

state-court decisions “against this Court’s precedents as of ‘the time the state court renders its

26

decision.’” Id. at 182 (quoting Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. at 71-72 (emphasis in original).

27
28

Although the Supreme Court stopped short of deciding whether a District Court could ever
conduct an evidentiary hearing unless it had previously determined that § 2254(d) had not been
2

1

satisfied, it is quite clear from the high court’s decision that holding an evidentiary hearing to find

2

facts never previously presented to the state court would be an extremely rare occurrence and that the

3

AEDPA’s statutory scheme is designed to discourage such hearings. Id. at 186. Petitioner has made

4

no showing that this case is that rare occurrence. Indeed, his request for a “trial” contains no

5

arguments or reasons whatsoever in support thereof. Accordingly, the Court will deny Petitioner’s

6

motion for a “trial.”

7

ORDER

8

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS:

9

1.

10
11

Petitioner’s motion for correction of the Notice of Lodging Documents (Doc. 45) is

DISREGARDED as MOOT.
2.

Petitioner’s motion for trial (Doc. 48), is DENIED.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 17, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3