Birt Ford v. Andrew Cole, Warden

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act permits federal habeas relief when a state prisoner proves that the state court decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” or was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). To obtain a federal evidentiary hearing, a prisoner must show—subject to two exceptions not applicable here— that they exercised “diligence,” by making “a reasonable attempt, in light of the information available at the time, to investigate and pursue [their] claims in state court.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 435 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). The question presented is: Whether, consistent with §§ 2254(d) and (e)(2), a federal court may deny an evidentiary hearing for lack of diligence and deny habeas relief for lack of evidence when the prisoner presented a colorable claim in state court and pursued available procedures to develop the claim’s factual basis, only for the state court to deny any opportunity for such development and then reject the claim because the prisoner “did not provide any evidence.” App. 77a.