IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 27, 2011
DWAYNE MEREDITH, PETITIONER,
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
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.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.