Ellis v. Cullen et al
Filing
23
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING 18 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/13/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (rbe, COURT STAFF).
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
REGINALD EDWARD ELLIS,
9
10
11
12
13
No. C 10-4197 SI (pr)
Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING
v.
VINCE CULLEN, warden,
Respondent.
/
14
This is a pro se habeas case in which petitioner Ellis challenges a 2008 probation
15
revocation by the Alameda County Superior Court. The court dismissed several claims and
16
ordered respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted as to three others.
17
Ellis has moved for an evidentiary hearing.
18
Petitioner raises three claims, that (1) the revocation of his probation violated the
19
Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, because California state criminal laws for false
20
statements were preempted by 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and the National Labor Relations Act, so that
21
18 U.S.C. § 1001 was the exclusive source of any criminal penalty for his allegedly false
22
statements in N.L.R.B. proceedings; (2) counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the preemption
23
argument; and (3) counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate some discovery documents
24
that would have shown that the allegedly falsified documents were in the NUMMI legal
25
department before being sent to the N.L.R.B., and that would have corroborated his position that
26
he was obliged to send all the information to the N.L.R.B.
27
28
He asserts in the amended petition that these claims were raised and rejected in state court
in his direct appeal and in state habeas proceedings. Am. Pet. at 4-5.
1
A district court may grant a petition challenging a state judgment – as here – on the basis
2
of a claim that was “adjudicated on the merits” in state court only if the state court's adjudication
3
of the claim: "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
4
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the
5
United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of
6
the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." See 28 U.S.C.
7
§ 2254(d). In reviewing the reasonableness of a state court's decision to which § 2254(d)(1)
8
applies, a district court may rely only on the record that was before the state court. Cullen v.
9
Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011) (holding that new evidence presented at evidentiary
10
hearing cannot be considered in assessing whether state court's decision "was contrary to, or
11
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law" under § 2254(d)(1)).
12
And of course claims reviewed under § 2254(d)(2) involve, by the terms of that subsection, only
13
the evidence that was presented in state court. In short, a federal court generally is precluded
14
from supplementing the record with facts adduced for the first time at a federal evidentiary
15
hearing when a petitioner's claim has been adjudicated on the merits in state court, as is the case
16
here. See id. at 1399 ("It would be strange to ask federal courts to analyze whether a state court's
17
adjudication resulted in a decision that unreasonably applied federal law to facts not before the
18
state court.").
19
20
21
22
For the above reasons, Ellis’ motion for an evidentiary hearing (document number 18 on
the docket) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 13, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
