Molina v. Unnamed Respondents

Filing 27

ORDER denying 20 Petitioner's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 1/23/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kcm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

HECTOR PABLO MOLINA,
Petitioner,

11
12

v.

13

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,

14

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv720-JLS-MDD
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING
[ECF No. 20]

15
16

Hector Pablo Molina (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

17

seeks federal habeas relief from a felony conviction for second degree murder.

18

On November 11, 2016, Petitioner constructively filed a motion for an

19

evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 20). On December 9, 2016, Respondent timely

20

filed an opposition. (ECF No. 22). Petitioner did not file a reply. (See

21

Docket). Petitioner requests that the Court conduct an evidentiary hearing.

22

(See ECF No. 20). A federal court’s discretion to hold an evidentiary hearing

23

is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), which provides:

24
25

If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in
State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary
hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that –

26
27

(A) the claim relies on –
1
16cv720-JLS-MDD

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously made
unavailable; or
(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously
discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and
(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish
by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error,
no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of
the underlying offense.
“Federal courts sitting in habeas are not an alternative forum for trying

10

facts and issue which a prisoner made insufficient effort to pursue in state

11

proceedings.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 437. Petitioner generally argues that the

12

state court “failed to provide a full and fair [h]earing and the District Court

13

now is required to hold an . . . Evidentiary hearing in accord” because the

14

verdict was “illogical,” “unbelievable” and “witnesses are of central issue.”

15

(ECF No. 20 at 8-9). Petitioner does not establish that his request relies on a

16

new rule of constitutional law, or a factual predicate that could not have been

17

previously discovered through due diligence. (See ECF No. 20). Similarly,

18

Petitioner has not alleged facts that would be sufficient to establish by clear

19

and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable

20

factfinder would have found him guilty of the underlying offense. (See id.).

21

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary

22

hearing.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2017

25
26
27
2
16cv720-JLS-MDD