Carpenter v. Holland

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/3/2015 DENYING without prejudice petitioner's 4 request for evidentiary hearing. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN WARREN CARPENTER, 12 No. 2:14-cv-00692-JAM-AC (HC) Petitioner, 13 v. 14 KIM HOLLAND, 15 ORDER Respondent. 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. ECF No. 1. On March 14, 2014, petitioner filed a separate one- 19 sentence request for an evidentiary hearing. ECF No. 4. 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 the 9 court will address sua sponte whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted when the merits of the 10 petition are considered. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is denied without prejudice. 13 DATED: February 3, 2015 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?