Opinion
No. 3:03-CV-1675-R.
March 17, 2005
ORDER
This cause came before the Court upon Petitioner Kennal Ford's "Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and . . . Discovery for Expansion of Record," filed on November 18, 2004. It is ORDERED that Ford's motion is DENIED.
A court shall not conduct an evidentiary hearing unless a petitioner failed to develop a claim in state court, provided that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law or on "a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence" and the facts would "establish by clear and convincing evidence" the petitioner's actual innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). To be entitled to discovery, a habeas petitioner must show that there is a factual dispute that, if resolved in his favor, would entitle him to relief and that the State did not afford him a full and fair evidentiary hearing. RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES 6(b); Rector v. Johnson, 120 F.3d 551, 562-63 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1120 (1998). For the reasons stated in this Court's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation entered this day, Ford has failed to satisfy the statutory requirements and is not entitled to habeas corpus relief; thus, neither an evidentiary hearing nor discovery are appropriate. RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES 6(a), 8(a).