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)

Download PDF
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?