From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harper v. Hickman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 27, 2006
CV F 05-1447 REC DLB HC, [Doc. 8] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006)

Opinion

CV F 05-1447 REC DLB HC, [Doc. 8].

February 27, 2006


ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO SET HEARING DATE


Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner filed the instant petition on November 16, 2005. On December 23, 2005, Petitioner filed a request to set a hearing date. (Court Doc. 8.) The Court construes Petitioner's request as a motion for an evidentiary hearing.

Rule 8(a) provides that where a petition is not dismissed at a previous stage in the proceeding, the judge, after the answer and transcripts and record of the state court proceedings are filed, shall, upon review of those proceedings, determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to resolve the merits of a factual dispute. An evidentiary hearing on a claim is required where it is clear from the petition that: (1) the allegations, if established, would entitle the petitioner to relief; and (2) the state court trier of fact has not reliably found the relevant facts. See, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 1992). As the function of an evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact, Townsend v. Sain 372 U.S. 293, 309 (1963) ( overruled in part by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715 (1993)), such a hearing is unnecessary when only issues of law are raised. Id.

The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to resolve the merits of a factual dispute. In the instant case, the Court has set to review the instant petition and until a thorough review of the merits of Petitioner's claims, it cannot be determined that a factual dispute necessitating an evidentiary hearing is present. Following a thorough review of the petition's merits, the Court will sua sponte issue an order for an evidentiary hearing should it find one necessary.

In fact, the Court has simultaneously directed Petitioner to either submit a completed in forma pauperis application or pay the $5.00 filing fee.

Accordingly, the request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Harper v. Hickman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 27, 2006
CV F 05-1447 REC DLB HC, [Doc. 8] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006)
Case details for

Harper v. Hickman

Case Details

Full title:JASON SCOTT HARPER, Petitioner, v. RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 27, 2006

Citations

CV F 05-1447 REC DLB HC, [Doc. 8] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006)