Torrence v. Bennett

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05541
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ZACKERY CHRISTOPHER TORRENCE, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05541-JCC-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER ON PETITIONER’S 12 MOTION TO PRODUCE THE JASON BENNETT, RECORD 13 Respondent. 14

15 The District Court has referred this federal habeas action to United States Magistrate 16 Judge Grady J. Leupold. Currently before the Court is Petitioner Zackery Christopher Torrence’s 17 Motion to Produce the Record (Dkt. 24), requesting that this Court (1) direct Respondent to 18 produce the entirety of the state court record and (2) hold an evidentiary hearing. The Court 19 DENIES the Motion (Dkt. 24). 20 I. DISCUSSION 21 A. State Court Record 22 Petitioner first requests that this Court order Respondent to produce “each, every and all” 23 state court records. Dkt. 24 at 2. Specifically, Petitioner appears to seek documents that will 24 1 enable him to show that he was not present or represented by counsel at preliminary criminal 2 proceedings and to challenge the state court’s jurisdiction. Id. at 2–3. The Court agrees with 3 Respondent, however, that federal habeas review under § 2254(d) is limited to the record “before 4 the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits” and does not encompass preliminary

5 jurisdictional documents—especially not where those documents are unrelated to the substantive 6 claims Petitioner raised in state court proceedings. Dkt. 25 (quoting Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 7 U.S. 170, 181-82 (2011)). 8 The record produced here by Respondent (see Dkt. 23) complies with Rule 5 of the Rules 9 Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Court therefore DENIES Petitioner’s request that the Court 10 direct further record production. 11 B. Evidentiary Hearing 12 The decision to hold an evidentiary hearing is committed to the Court’s discretion. 13 Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007). “[A] federal court must consider whether such a 14 hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition’s factual allegations, which, if true, would

15 entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.” Id. at 474. In determining whether relief is 16 available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), the Court’s review is limited to the record before the 17 state court. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181–82 (2011). A hearing is not required if the 18 allegations would not entitle Petitioner to relief under § 2254(d). Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 474. “It 19 follows that if the record refutes the applicant’s factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas 20 relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.” Id. Further, the Supreme 21 Court in Shinn held that when reviewing a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the 22 federal court may not consider any facts beyond the factual record presented to the state post- 23

24 1 conviction relief court – unless one of the limited exceptions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) applies. 2 Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366, 382 (2022). 3 The Court declines to address Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing at this time 4 and will instead address the issue in consideration of the fully ripe and briefed Petition. The

5 Court therefore DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing. 6 II. CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to 8 Produce the Record (Dkt. 24) is DENIED and Petitioner’s Motion for an evidentiary hearing is 9 DENIED without prejudice. 10 Dated this 4th day of February, 2025. 11 A 12 13 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24