1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAYNE TAYLOR, III,

12 Petitioner, No. 2:25-cv-00398-TLN-AC 13 v. 14 WARDEN, et al., ORDER 15 Respondents.

16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Wayne Taylor III’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for 19 Reconsideration of the assigned magistrate judge’s October 20, 2025 order. (ECF Nos. 55, 62.) 20 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. 21 The general facts of this case are known to both parties. Relevant here, Respondents filed 22 a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing in part that Petitioner 23 failed to exhaust state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 13 at 4.) Specifically, Respondents argued 24 Petitioner could refile his petition in state court. (Id. at 5–6.) In response, Petitioner filed several 25 motions including a motion for an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 36.) Petitioner requested the 26 evidentiary hearing to adjudicate whether Petitioner “fairly presented” his claim to the California 27 Supreme Court. (Id. at 4.) On October 20, 2025, the magistrate judge denied Petitioner’s motion 28 for an evidentiary hearing finding it unnecessary. (ECF No. 55 at 6.) Petitioner now seeks 1 reconsideration of this October 20, 2025 order. (ECF No. 62.) 2 A party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge within 3 fourteen days after service of the order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The magistrate judge’s order 4 will be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.;

(b)(1)(A); 5 E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f). “A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly 6 convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision.” Martinez v. Lawless, No. 1:12- 7 CV-01301-LJO-SKO,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015) (citing Kern-Tulare 8 Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield,

(E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d 9 in part on other grounds,

(9th Cir. 1987)). 10 Under the “clearly erroneous” standard, “the district court can overturn the magistrate 11 judge’s ruling only if the district court is left with the ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake 12 has been committed.’” E.E.O.C. v. Peters’ Bakery,

(N.D. Cal. 2014) 13 (quoting Burdick v. C.I.R.,

(9th Cir. 1992)). “Thus, review under the 14 ‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential.’” Concrete Pipe and Prods. of Cal., Inc. 15 v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal.,

(1993). “A [m]agistrate [j]udge’s 16 decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to consider an element 17 of applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of 18 procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10-CV-00156-LJO-MJ,

, at *1 (E.D. 19 Cal. July 18, 2014) (citation omitted). 20 Petitioner raises several objections arguing the magistrate judge’s decision to deny his 21 request for an evidentiary hearing was clearly erroneous and contrary to law. (ECF No. 62 at 2– 22 5.) Primarily, Petitioner appears to argue that the denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing 23 is itself contrary to law. (Id.) While it is certainly true that such a denial can be erroneous, there 24 is no universal requirement that an evidentiary hearing be held for all habeas petitions under all 25 circumstances. The Supreme Court discusses mandatory and discretionary hearings in Townsend 26 v. Sain, which Petitioner cites to in his motion. (ECF No. 62 at 2 (citing

(1962)).) 27 As Petitioner points out, under Townsend, district courts must hold an evidentiary hearing if the 28 habeas applicant did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing in state court. (Id. (citing 372 1 | U.S. at 312-13).) However, a federal evidentiary hearing is not always required, where, as here, 2 | the question of whether Petitioner exhausted his claim can be determined based on the record. 3 | See Townsend,

n.9; Schriro v. Landrigan,

(2007) (“[I]f the 4 | record refutes [Petitioner’s] factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district 5 | court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.”). 6 The magistrate judge found an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary to determine the 7 | exhaustion issue and the Court finds no reason to find otherwise. Because the Court finds no 8 | clear error or holding contrary to law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of 9 | the magistrate judge’s October 20, 2025 order. 10 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 62) is DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Date: December 22, 2025 7, 13 TROY L. NUNLEY 14 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28