Rocky Mountain Bank -v- Google, Inc.

Filing 264

Download PDF
Rocky Mountain Bank -v- Google, Inc. Doc. 264 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. TOM CARRY, Respondent. / JEFFREY M. DANIELS, Petitioner, No. C 98-03122 SBA (PR) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing in this action. Under the AEDPA express limitations are imposed on the power of a federal court to grant an evidentiary hearing. The habeas statute provides that a district court may not hold an evidentiary hearing on a claim for which the petitioner failed to develop a factual basis in State court unless petitioner shows that: (1) the claim relies either on (a) a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review, or (b) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence, and (2) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2). Even if an evidentiary hearing is permitted because a prisoner was able to clear the hurdle posed by 2254(e)(2), one is not required. Downs v. Hoyt, 232 F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th Cir. 2000). Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The district court retains discretion whether to hold an evidentiary hearing or to expand the record with discovery and documentary evidence instead. Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 590 (9th Cir. 2004). This permissible intermediate step may avoid the necessity of an expensive and time consuming hearing in every habeas corpus case. Id. at 590-91. Here, as a threshold matter, Petitioner has not alleged why he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under 2254(e)(2). He does not assert that his claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review, nor does he allege that the factual predicate of his claim could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Moreover, it is not clear to the Court that the facts which Petitioner seeks to develop could not be gathered other than by way of an evidentiary hearing, through the use of discovery and supplementation of the record. See Downs, 232 F.3d at 1041. Accordingly, the request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED without prejudice as premature. This denial is without prejudice to the Court's sua sponte reconsideration should the Court find an evidentiary hearing necessary following consideration of the merits of Petitioner's claims. This Order terminates Docket no. 46. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 5/6/08 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.98\Daniels3122.DenyEvid.frm 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. CARRY, Defendant. / Case Number: CV98-03122 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on May 7, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Jeffrey M. Daniels C05131 CSP-LAC P.O. Box 8457 Lancaster, CA 93539-8457 Dated: May 7, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.98\Daniels3122.DenyEvid.frm 3

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?