The opinion of the court was delivered by: Pisano, District Judge:
1. On July 22, 2009, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a judgment of conviction filed on November 10, 2005, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division. On February 17, 2010, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Docket Entry #10.)
2. On April 29, 2010, Respondents filed an Answer and the record. (Docket Entry #18.). On July 13, 2010, Petitioner filed a Reply. (Docket Entry #27.)
3. Before this Court are four more motions filed by Petitioner Baker: motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 69), motion on racial profiling (Dkt. 70), motion to consolidate this case with Baker v. Ricci, Civ. No. 09-3654 (KM) (D.N.J. filed July 22, 2009) (Dkt. 72), and motion to expand the record and for evidentiary hearing (Dkt. 77.)
A. Reconsideration Motion
4. On April 23, 2012, Baker filed a "RECONSIDERATION MOTION, ON MISIDENTIFICATION AND DNA EXCLUSION CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER REQUEST A GRANT OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ABSENT TRIAL." Dkt. 69 at 1.) Baker asserts:
On March 15, 2012, the Court directed the Petition in the above captioned matter, to re-submit his Motion For reconsideration in lieu of denying the same without prejudice . . . . Petitioner therefore seeks clarification for the order to deny, granting the Court the opportunity, to correct, and why the Court failed to rule on actual innocence issues, and rule on the Respondents Delay of Mail reaching the United States Supreme Court, and denial of the trial transcripts, denial of New Trial Motion Transcripts, and denial of the Federal Court record, so I would have a right to defend, if I were to go back to the Court of first instance (The Trial Court). I seek a Federal Mandate either granting the writ, and or sending to the Court of First Instance with compliance of the record being turned over to me . . . .The court failed to rule on a change of jurisdiction . . . . In furtherance thereof, I submitted a copy of the Innocence Project Brief . . . and the Court's Order does not reflect and/or mention the Innocence Project and/or Judge Gibbons Law Firm, acting as amicus curiae, please clarify the Order, and issue such Federal Mandate, so these matter can achieve a sense of finality.
The Court has failed to strike all non parties, strike all Lexis Orders. Petitioner seek an immediate resolution to these matters by leave of the Court, Petitioner seek an resolution on an accelerated basis. (Dkt. 69 at 1-2.)
5. By Order and Opinion filed March 15, 2012, this Court denied Baker's motion for issuance of subpoenas and for depositions (Dkt. 50), denied Baker's motion for DNA and other discovery (Dkt. 54), denied Baker's motion for reconsideration of motion on misidentification (Dkt. 59), denied Baker's motion for reimbursement of funds (Dkt. 60), and denied without prejudice Baker's motion for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. 64.) This Court did not direct Baker to re-submit his motion(s), but denied these motions because Baker's voluminous submissions were for the most part incomprehensible. To the extent that this Court was able to decipher Baker's submissions, it gleaned that they were premised on the granting the motion for an evidentiary hearing. This Court denied the motion for an evidentiary hearing without prejudice and advised Baker that it would consider whether an evidentiary hearing was warranted at the time it analyzed the grounds raised in the Amended Petition and the issues raised in the Answer. (Dkt. 67.)
6. As this Court explained in its prior Opinion, this Court may not order an evidentiary hearing unless it first finds either that the New Jersey courts did not adjudicate Baker's federal claims on the merits or, if the claim(s) were adjudicated on the merits, that the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) or (d)(2) has been satisfied. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388 (2011).
7. This Court advises Petitioner Baker that it is not necessary for him to file additional motions seeking discovery, an evidentiary hearing and other relief. Baker's voluminous and repetitive motions in this case have diverted this Court's attention and resources from the merits of the grounds in the Amended Petition, and caused unnecessary delay in the resolution of those claims. It is not helpful or necessary for Baker to make the same arguments again and again. This Court will determine on its own and without further motions whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted at the time it considers the merits of the grounds raised in the Amended Petition and the legal issues presented in the Answer. Moreover, if this Court orders an evidentiary hearing, then this Court will also appoint an attorney to represent Baker and that attorney will decide whether or not to seek discovery and/or to expand the record. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rules 6, 7, 8(c). Accordingly, this Court will deny Baker's motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. 69.)
B. Motion for Discovery, to Expand the Record and for an Evidentiary Hearing
8. On November 28, 2012, Baker filed a motion for discovery, to expand the record and for an evidentiary hearing. (Dkt. 77.) For the reasons expressed ...