Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dwayne Meredith v. Supreme Court of the State of California

January 27, 2011

DWAYNE MEREDITH, PETITIONER,
v.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.



ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has also filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing.

"Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases allows the district court to expand the record without holding an evidentiary hearing." Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236, 1241 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). "However, before the record may be supplemented with new evidence, a petitioner must meet the same standard that is required for an evidentiary hearing. In order to be awarded an evidentiary hearing, a petitioner must either: (1) satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e), or (2) show that he 'exercised diligence in his efforts to develop the factual basis of his claims in state court proceedings.' " Libberton v. Ryan, 583 F.3d 1147, 1165 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted); see also Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 652-53 (2004).

Here, petitioner has neither satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) nor shown diligence in his efforts to develop the factual basis of his claims in state court. Thus, petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.

20110127

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.