Armenia Cudjo, Jr. v. Robert Ayers, Jr.
Filing
43
Filed (ECF) Appellant Armenia Levi Cudjo, Jr. Motion to take judicial notice of court orders in other cases. Date of service: 09/15/2010. [7475919] (MRD)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMENIA LEVI CUDJO, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
VINCENT CULLEN, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
)
) CA No. 08-99028
)
) D.C. No. CV-99-08089-JFW
)
)
)
)
)
)
APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER
United States District Judge
SEAN K. KENNEDY
Federal Public Defender
MARK R. DROZDOWSKI
JOHN LITTRELL
Deputy Federal Public Defenders
321 East 2nd Street
Los Angeles, California
Telephone: (213) 894-2854
Facsimile: (213) 894-0081
Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant
ARMENIA LEVI CUDJO, JR.
Petitioner and Appellant Armenia Cudjo requests that the Court take
judicial notice of two orders in Morales v. Cates, N.D. Cal. case nos. 5-6-cv-219JF-HRL, 5-6-cv-926-JF-HRL: Order Setting Joint Status Conference dated
September 2, 1010; and Order Following Regulatory Action dated August 4, 2010.
Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2) permits this Court to take judicial notice
of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is . . . (2) capable of
accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned.” This Court “may take judicial notice of its own
records in other cases, as well as the records of an inferior court in other cases.”
United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). A court must take
judicial notice when requested by a party and supplied with the correct
information, Fed. R. Evid. 201(d), and judicial notice may be taken at any time
during the proceeding. Fed. R. Evid. 201(f).
Cudjo requests that the Court take judicial notice of these orders because
they provide background information on the current state of California’s lethal
injection regulations, and the state of legal challenges to them. The sole claim that
the district court certified in this appeal is Cudjo’s lethal injection challenge. The
district court order certifying the claim for appeal states: “In light of the fact that
the issue is not thoroughly settled, and the identical claim is already being litigated
in the Northern District of California, the Court denies relief on the claim, but
1
grants a certificate of appealability. This will allow Armenia’s claim to be
reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after the litigation before the
district court in Morales v. Tilton, on the issue of the constitutionality of the lethal
injection method, is completed.” Excerpts of Record filed with Appellant’s Brief
(“ER”) 191.
The orders are a proper subject of judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid.
201(b)(2). They are “not subject to reasonable dispute” and originate from a
source whose “accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Wilson, 631 F.2d at
119; Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Cudjo has supplied this Court with the necessary
information to take judicial notice and thus judicial notice is mandatory. Fed. R.
Evid. 201(d).
A copy of the orders has been filed in Appellant’s Supplemental Excerpts of
Record, filed concurrently herewith and with Appellant’s Reply Brief, at pages 13.
Respectfully submitted,
SEAN K. KENNEDY
Federal Public Defender
DATED: September 15, 2010
By /s/ Mark R. Drozdowski
MARK R. DROZDOWSKI
Deputy Federal Public Defender
Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant
ARMENIA LEVI CUDJO JR.
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 15, 2010, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system.
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and
that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.
By /s/ Mark R. Drozdowski
MARK R. DROZDOWSKI
Deputy Federal Public Defender
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?