McDaniel v. Chavez et al

Filing 23

ORDER Denying 22 Request for Judicial Notice signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 09/19/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT MCDANIEL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:10-cv-01077-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(Doc. 22.)

FRANK X. CHAVEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Robert McDaniel (APlaintiff@) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the

20

Complaint commencing this action on June 15, 2010. (Doc. 1.) On August 18, 2014, Plaintiff

21

filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 17.) On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed the

22

Second Amended Complaint, which awaits the court’s requisite screening. (Doc. 21.)

23

On September 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice, with documents

24

attached. (Doc. 22.)

25

II.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

26

AA judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is

27

either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of

28

accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
1

1

questioned.@ Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). AA court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party

2

and supplied with the necessary information.@ Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). The court may take

3

judicial notice of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.l (N.D.

4

Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981). AJudicial notice

5

is an adjudicative device that alleviates the parties= evidentiary duties at trial, serving as a

6

substitute for the conventional method of taking evidence to establish facts.@ York v. American

7

Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 948, 958 (10th Cir. 1996)(internal quotations omitted); see General

8

Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997).

9

Plaintiff requests the court to take judicial notice of documents submitted as evidence of

10

Plaintiff’s claims with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board.

11

(Exh. A to Doc. 22.)

12

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to take judicial notice of these

13

documents. To the extent that Plaintiff intends to submit the documents as evidence in support

14

of his Second Amended Complaint, the court cannot serve as a repository for the parties=

15

evidence. The parties may not file evidence with the court until the course of litigation brings

16

the evidence into question. At this stage of the proceedings, these documents are not at issue.

17

Therefore, the court finds no good cause to take judicial notice of the documents submitted by

18

Plaintiff.

19

III.

20
21

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for judicial

notice, filed on September 17, 2014, is DENIED.

22

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 19, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2