Opinion
CV-20-01388-PHX-DLR (MHB)
01-05-2022
Kilian Gregoire Hale, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Honorable Michelle H. Burns, United States Magistrate Judge.
Pending before this Court on referral from presiding District Judge Rayes (Doc. 53), is Petitioner's Motion to Revisit “Petitioner's Request for an Evidentiary Hearing with his Suggestions in Support.” (Doc. 49.) Respondents have filed a Response (Doc. 50), to which Petitioner has not replied.
Petitioner complains that this Court never ruled on his Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 20). On the contrary, this Court denied Petitioner's motion as premature, as Respondents had not yet responded to Petitioner's habeas petition, and the Court had not determined if Petitioner's claims had merit. (Doc. 24.) Subsequently this Court issued a Report and Recommendation to the presiding District Judge finding that Petitioner's habeas petition lacked merit and recommending that Petitioner's habeas petition be denied. (Doc. 40.) The presiding District Judge accepted the Report and Recommendation, and judgment was subsequently entered denying and dismissing Petitioner's habeas petition with prejudice. (Docs. 47, 48.)
As Petitioner's claims were found to lack merit, Petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2); see also Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). Petitioner claims that his motion for an evidentiary hearing contained allegations entitling him to an evidentiary hearing. However, in his motion Petitioner repeated allegations he had already made in his habeas petition, assertions which the Court found lacked merit.
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Revisit “Petitioner's Request for an Evidentiary Hearing with his Suggestions in Support” (Doc. 49) be DENIED.
A motion for reconsideration of this Order may be filed with the presiding District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) within thirty (30) days.