1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALPHONSO WILLIAMS, Case No. CV 19-9621 JFW (PVC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STU SHERMAN, Warden, STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition, Respondent’s 18 motion to dismiss, all of the records and files herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 19 Recommendation, and Petitioner’s objections. After having made a de novo 20 determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the objections 21 were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the 22 Magistrate Judge. 23 24 In his objections, Petitioner asserts that the Magistrate Judge applied conflicting 25 standards for passing through the actual innocence gateway articulated in Schlup v. Delo, 26

(1995), and thus disregarded the weight of “newly discovered” evidence that 27 would prove Petitioner’s innocence. (Obj. at 3). However, the Report clearly delineates 28 the standard for an actual innocence claim, which requires the introduction of “relevant 1 evidence that was either excluded or unavailable at trial,” and a finding that “it is more 2 likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted [the petitioner] in light of 3 the new evidence.” See Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327–28. The actual innocence exception is 4 limited to “exceptional cases involving a compelling claim of actual innocence.” House v. 5 Bell,

(2006). Petitioner’s objections lack merit because none of the 6 supporting evidence he identifies satisfies the demanding standard for claims of actual 7 innocence. Stewart v. Cate,

(9th Cir. 2014). As such, the objections 8 are overruled. 9 10 Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing to “further examine Johara Richardson,” 11 who provided the declaration on which his actual innocence claim is based. (Obj. at 11). 12 “In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider 13 whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition’s factual 14 allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.” Schriro v. 15 Landrigan,

(2007). Because the Court has concluded that Richardson’s 16 testimony that Petitioner was not the driver of the get-away car for certain store robberies 17 would be insufficient to warrant habeas relief on his freestanding actual innocence claim, 18 an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. See

To the extent Petitioner seeks an 19 evidentiary hearing to present additional evidence in support of his claim, he cannot 20 obtain federal habeas relief based on evidence developed at the evidentiary hearing that 21 was not in the record before the state court when it denied his actual innocence claim. 22 Cullen v. Pinholster,

(2011) (federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2254(d)(1) “is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the 24 claim on the merits.”). Accordingly, Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is 25 denied. 26 27 IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Petition is 28 denied and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the 2 || Judgment herein on Petitioner at his current address of record and on counsel for 3 || Respondent. 4 5 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 6 7 || DATED: April 23, 2020 8 hh □□ JO WALTER 10 ait ITEp STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28