Crayton v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 238

ORDER DENYING Motion for an ADA Accommodation Order 233 , signed by District Judge William Haskell Alsup on 2/6/13. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TIMOTHY CRAYTON,

No. C 08-00621 WHA (PR)

10
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AN
ADA ACCOMMODATION ORDER

v.
For the Eastern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,
11
12
13

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER A.
HEDGPETH, et al.,

14
Defendants.
/

15
16

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by a California prisoner
17
proceeding pro se. On December 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for an ADA accommodation
18
order. On January 18, 2013, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not
19
yet filed his opposition.
20
The court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in plaintiff’s federal appeal, Crayton
21
v. Rochester Medical Corporation, No. 11-15574 (9th Cir. filed March 10, 2011). See United
22
States v. Author Services, Inc., 804 F.2d 1520, 1523 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that district court
23
appropriately took judicial notice of facts developed in a related case when exercising its
24
discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing in an IRS summons enforcement proceeding),
25
amended in irrelevant part by 811 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by
26
United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1997); cf. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Crest
27
Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (“a court may take judicial notice of matters
28
of public record without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment,

1

as long as the facts noticed are not subject to reasonable dispute.”).

2

In Crayton v. Rochester Medical Corporation, plaintiff had filed a similar motion for an

3

ADA accommodation order on December 17, 2012. As in the underlying case, the motion filed

4

in the Ninth Circuit stated that, as of December 10, 2012, plaintiff would no longer be able to

5

use a “loaner typewriter,” and would need to obtain ADA typing accommodations from the law

6

library. However, notes plaintiff, the law library does not have such typing accommodations.

7

Thus, plaintiff requested the both courts to order the Warden or the prison litigation coordinator

8

to provide him with a state loaner typewriter so that he may continue to litigate his claims.

Corporation, requesting withdrawal of his motion for an ADA accommodation order. He

11
For the Eastern District of California

On January 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a status report in Crayton v. Rochester Medical

10

United States District Court

9

acknowledged that his inability to type had been resolved on December 18, 2012, and he was

12

given a state loaner typewriter.

13

In light of this status report, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for an ADA

14

accommodation order as moot.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: February

6

, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\E.D. CAL\CRAYTON621\CRAYTON621ada.wpd

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2