Andrade v Cate

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 03/06/15 denying 45 Motion for an evidentiary hearing. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADRIAN FRANK ANDRADE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:09-cv-02270 KJM AC P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

MATTHEW CATE,
Respondents.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 8, 2004 petitioner filed a separate request for an

19

evidentiary hearing. ECF No. 45.

20

In Cullen v. Pinholster, the Supreme Court made clear that in determining whether an

21

evidentiary hearing is warranted under 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2), the court must consider the

22

standards for habeas relief under section 2254(d). Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1399

23

(2011) (“‘[B]ecause the deferential standards prescribed by § 2254 control whether to grant

24

habeas relief, a federal court must take into account those standards in deciding whether an

25

evidentiary hearing is appropriate.’”) (quoting Schiro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007)). In

26

other words, the process of determining whether an evidentiary hearing should be granted

27

necessarily includes an analysis of both sections 2254(d) and 2254(e)(2). See id.; see also

28

Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 474 (“In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court
1

1

must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition’s factual

2

allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.”).

3

In light of this analytical overlap and the overwhelming demand on the court’s docket, the

4

court finds that the most prudent approach is to defer a decision on whether an evidentiary

5

hearing is appropriate until the court conducts a section 2254(d) analysis. See Landrigan, 550

6

U.S. at 473 (“[T]he decision to grant an evidentiary hearing [is] generally left to the sound

7

discretion of district courts. That basic rule has not changed.”) (internal citations omitted).

8

Therefore, petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is denied without prejudice and

9

the court will address sua sponte whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted when the merits of

10

the petition are considered.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing, ECF No. 45, is denied without prejudice.

13

DATED: March 6, 2015

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2