(HC)Garza v. Phillips

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANGEL M. GARZA, No. 1:23-cv-01723-JLT-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING 13 v. [Doc. 59] TAMMY CAMPBELL, 15 Respondent.

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

19 On July 2, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 59.) He contends it is necessary to resolve contested factual issues concerning his claims. The Court finds an evidentiary hearing is impermissible in this case. Therefore, the motion will be denied.

22 DISCUSSION 23 Evidentiary hearings are expressly authorized by Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. However, under the AEDPA, if a state court adjudicated Petitioner’s claim on the merits, the federal court’s review “is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 27 U.S. 170, 181 (2011). Here, as set forth in the Findings and Recommendations, the state court adjudicated Petitioner’s claims on the merits. (Doc. 55.)

1 As the state court adjudicated the claims on the merits, under the AEDPA, Petitioner “must overcome the limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court.” Id. at 185. As discussed in the Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner fails to overcome § 2254(d)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (setting forth the applicable standard for federal habeas review as whether the state court adjudication was “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application” of “clearly established federal law”); Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 773 (9th Cir. 2012) (petitioner not entitled to conduct additional discovery, expand the record, or obtain an evidentiary hearing where the state court had adjudicated the claim on the merits).

9 ORDER 10 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing (Doc. 59) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated: July 3, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE