Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00888-JJF Document 73 Filed O9/07/2005 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DAVID L. MAYFIELD, :
Petitioner, E
v. ; Civil Action No. 04-888-JJF
THOMAS CARROLL, Warden, 5
and M. JANE BRADY, :
Attorney General for the :
State of :
Delaware, :
Respondents. 2
O R D E R
At Wilmington this !iL_ day of September, 2005;
IT IS ORDERED that:
l. To the extent Petitioner's papers titled “Final
Argument" can be construed as a supplemental Reply to the State's
Answer, the Court will consider the supplemental explanations in
its review of his § 2254 Petition. (D.I. 41.)
2. To the extent Petitioner's request that the “Honorable
Court give [him] the opportunity to argue why {he] should be
resentenced” and permit him to make an appearance can be
construed as a Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing, it is DENIED.
(D.I. dl.) The AEDPA limits a district court’s discretion to
conduct evidentiary hearings on habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. §

Case1:O4-cv-00888-JJF Document 73 Filed O9/07/2005 Page20f2
2254(e); Campbell v. Vaughn, 209 F.3d 280, 286—87 (3d Cir. 200l).
In determining whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing, a
federal habeas court should focus “on whether a new evidentiary
hearing would be meaningful, in that a new hearing would have the
potential to advance the petitioner's claim.” Ig. at 28?. Here,
Petitioner fails “to forecast any evidence beyond that already
contained in the record that would otherwise help his cause, or
otherwise explain how his claim would be advanced by an
evidentiary hearing.” Ig; (internal citations omitted).
, » , _,. I} ., ,,.
R Q `I`2 °
j v0' i· 'S DISTRICT UDGE