(E.D.Va.1997). Thus, a petitioner’s “failure” to develop the factual basis of a claim in state court proceedings must be attributable to some sort of fault on the part of the petitioner — i.e. something the petitioner did or omitted to do. Other district and circuit courts have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1013 (9th Cir.1997) (“Where, as here, the state courts simply fail to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the AED-PA does not preclude a federal evidentiary hearing on otherwise exhausted habeas claims.”); Burris v. Parke, 116 F.3d 256, 258-59 (7th Cir.1997) (“To be attributable to a ‘failure’ under federal law the deficiency in the record must reflect something the petitioner did or omitted.”); Hunter v. Vasquez, 1996 WL 612484, *6 (N.D.Cal.1996) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court’s
holding federal evidentiary hearing not statutorily barred when petitioner had sought to develop factual basis for claim in state court holding that when a state has given petitioner a full and fair hearing on a claim and he has failed to develop material facts to support it he is not entitled to develop further facts in a federal habeas evidentiary hearing unless he demonstrates either cause for the failure and prejudice resulting therefrom or a fundamental miscarriage of justice holding that the state supreme courts summary adjudication of habeas petitioners claims left intact the reasoning of the lower court and that the state is accordingly entitled to the benefit of the more thorough treatment of petitioners strickland claims in that court holding that when a petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing in state court to develop the factual basis of a claim but the state court denies such a hearing entitlement to a federal court hearing is analyzed pursuant to preaedpa law rather than the standards set out in  2254e2 holding that where the state court denies petitioners requests for discovery investigatory funds and a hearing the court cannot find that petitioner failed adequately to develop the facts of his claims in state court