ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge.
This is a habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Gavin Keith Cullens challenges his convictions for felonious assault, assault with intent to cause great bodily harm, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony firearm. Before the Court are Petitioner's Motion for Oral Argument, Motion for Immediate Consideration, and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing.
A federal district court can grant oral argument in a habeas case where it would assist in resolving the matters raised in the habeas petition. See e.g., Haskell v. Berghuis, 695 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (E.D. Mich. 2010). The court finds, at this time, that oral argument is not necessary. If, at a later date, the court determines that oral argument would be beneficial, the court will schedule oral argument without necessity of the filing of an additional motion.
Petitioner seeks immediate consideration of his petition. The court endeavors to adjudicate all matters, including habeas corpus petitions, in as timely a manner as justice requires and the court's pending caseload allows. The court will address the merits of the petition as expeditiously as possible. Thus, the court will deny the motion as unnecessary.
Finally, Petitioner moves for an evidentiary hearing. Rule 8 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts states, in pertinent part:
Having conducted a preliminary review of this case, the court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not required. Respondent has submitted the transcripts and documents relevant to the adjudication of the petition as mandated by Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and it appears that Petitioner's habeas claims can be decided based upon the existing record before the court. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is "limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits." Cullen v. Pinholster, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011). Consequently, Petitioner is precluded from introducing into the habeas proceeding information that was not presented to the state courts. See, e.g., Hanna v. Ishee, 694 F.3d 596, 606 (6th Cir. 2012) (stating that even if a court conducted an evidentiary hearing on a claim adjudicated by the state court, it would have to "disregard newly obtained evidence").
Additionally, an evidentiary hearing is not warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), which applies to claims not adjudicated on the merits in the state courts. Keeling v. Warden, 673 F.3d 452, 464 (6th Cir. 2012). That provision states:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Petitioner has not shown that any of his claims rely on a new rule of constitutional law or a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Therefore, an evidentiary hearing is also not warranted under § 2254(e)(2). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's "Motion for Oral Argument," [Dkt. # 4] "Motion for Immediate Consideration," [Dkt. #5] and "Motion for Evidentiary Hearing," [Dkt. # 6] are DENIED.
