Soojian v. Lizarraga

Filing 69

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 64 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Expansion and Development of the Record signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/9/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
TANNEN SOOJIAN,

11

Case No. 1:16-cv-00254-AWI-SAB-HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
AND EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE RECORD

Petitioner,

12
v.

13

JOE A. LIZARRAGA,

14

(ECF No. 64)
Respondent.

15
16

Petitioner is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

17

1
18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 19, 2019, the Court: (1) denied Petitioner’s

19 motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of stay and alternative motion to stay; (2) denied
20 Petitioner’s motion to compel Respondent to produce the complete state court record; and (3)
21 adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation that recommended denial of the
22 petition. (ECF No. 62).
On March 22, 2019, the Court received the instant motion for evidentiary hearing and

23

24 expansion and development of the record. (ECF No. 64). For the reasons set forth in the Court’s
25 March 19th order (ECF No. 62) and the Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 52), which
26 were adopted, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing and expansion and development of the
27
1

The order was signed on March 19, 2019, but it was not entered on the docket until the following day. (ECF No.

28 62).

1

1 record is not warranted. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181, 185 (2011) (“hold[ing] that
2 review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated
3 the claim on the merits”); Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 773 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that
4 a habeas petitioner “is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or additional discovery in federal
5 court because his claim is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)”).
6

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing and expansion and

7 development of the record (ECF No. 64) is DENIED.
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: May 9, 2019

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2