Pinson v. Dukett et al

Filing 99

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 81 Motion to Take Judicial Notice. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 7/29/22. (BAC)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jeremy Pinson,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

United States,

13

No. CV-19-00422-TUC-RM
ORDER

Defendant.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson’s pro se Motion to Take

16

Judicial Notice. (Doc. 81.)1 In the Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice

17

of victim impact statements in United States v. Jemine, a case that Plaintiff avers she

18

quoted in her Response to Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary

19

Judgment. (Id.) Plaintiff attaches to the Motion to Take Judicial Notice a cover sheet for

20

the case United States v. Jemine, 555 Fed. App’x 624 (7th Cir. Feb. 20, 2014), along with

21

a summary of victim impact statements related to charges that were not at issue in United

22

States v. Jemine, 555 Fed. App’x 624.

23

In her Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary

24

Judgment, Plaintiff refers to a victim impact statement of a Bureau of Prisons staff

25

member in United States v. Jemine (D. Ariz.). (Doc. 79 at 7.) The charges discussed in

26

the summary of the victim impact statements that Plaintiff attaches to her Motion to Take

27

Judicial Notice appear to coincide with those at issue in United States v. Jemine, No.

28
1

Other pending Motions will be resolved separately.

1

4:21-mj-01563-LCK (D. Ariz.), a case that was transferred to the Northern District of

2

Illinois, United States v. Jemine, No. 1:21-cr-00374-1 (N.D. Ill.).

3

Memorandum filed by the Government in United States v. Jemine, No. 1:21-cr-00374-1

4

(N.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2021) discusses victim impact statements, and that discussion appears

5

to coincide with, but is not identical to, the summary of victim impact statements attached

6

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice.

The Sentencing

7

A court may take judicial notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable

8

dispute” because it is either “generally known within the trial court’s territorial

9

jurisdiction” or “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy

10

cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). A court may take judicial

11

notice of the fact of a court proceeding or filing as an undisputed matter of public record;

12

however, a court may not take judicial notice of facts subject to reasonable dispute that

13

are stated within court proceedings or filings. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,

14

689-90 (9th Cir. 2001). If “a court takes judicial notice of another court’s opinion, it may

15

do so not for the truth of the facts recited therein” but only “for the existence of the

16

opinion, which is not subject to reasonable dispute over its authenticity.” Id. at 690

17

(internal quotation marks omitted).

18

This Court could take judicial notice of the fact of the filing of victim impact

19

statements in a criminal case, but it is not entirely clear which case Plaintiff is

20

referencing, and Plaintiff appears to be asking this Court to take judicial notice not of the

21

fact of the filing of the victim impact statements but of facts contained within those

22

statements. Even if Plaintiff had attached the actual victim impact statements at issue

23

rather than a summary of unknown origin, it is not appropriate for this Court to take

24

judicial notice of facts asserted within those victim impact statements, as such facts are

25

subject to reasonable dispute.

26

Accordingly,

27

....

28

....

-2-

1
2
3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice (Doc. 81) is
denied.
Dated this 29th day of July, 2022.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-