Molina v. Unnamed Respondents
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HECTOR PABLO MOLINA,
ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,
Case No.: 16cv720-JLS-MDD
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
[ECF No. 20]
Hector Pablo Molina (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se,
seeks federal habeas relief from a felony conviction for second degree murder.
On November 11, 2016, Petitioner constructively filed a motion for an
evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 20). On December 9, 2016, Respondent timely
filed an opposition. (ECF No. 22). Petitioner did not file a reply. (See
Docket). Petitioner requests that the Court conduct an evidentiary hearing.
(See ECF No. 20). A federal court’s discretion to hold an evidentiary hearing
is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), which provides:
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 –
(A) the claim relies on –
(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously made
(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
facts and issue which a prisoner made insufficient effort to pursue in state
proceedings.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 437. Petitioner generally argues that the
state court “failed to provide a full and fair [h]earing and the District Court
now is required to hold an . . . Evidentiary hearing in accord” because the
verdict was “illogical,” “unbelievable” and “witnesses are of central issue.”
(ECF No. 20 at 8-9). Petitioner does not establish that his request relies on a
new rule of constitutional law, or a factual predicate that could not have been
previously discovered through due diligence. (See ECF No. 20). Similarly,
Petitioner has not alleged facts that would be sufficient to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable
factfinder would have found him guilty of the underlying offense. (See id.).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2017
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?