Fields v. Rosenthal

Filing 57

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 50 Motion to Strike or Deny Plaintiff's Request; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 48 Request for Judicial Notice signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/30/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN FIELDS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. RICHARD ROSENTHAL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 1:10-cv-01764-GSA-PC ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST (Doc. 50.) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (Doc. 48.) 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by civil complaint at the Kings 22 County Superior Court on August 11, 2010 (Case #10-C0309). On September 23, 2010, 23 defendant Richard Rosenthal (ADefendant@) removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice 24 of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(b). (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on 25 the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on August 22, 2012, against Defendant 26 Rosenthal, for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 17.) 27 28 On December 30, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s second request for judicial notice. (Doc. 50.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 1 1 II. DEFENDANT’S MOTION 2 Defendant moves to strike, or in the alternative, to deny the request for judicial notice 3 filed by Plaintiff on December 6, 2013, in which Plaintiff requests the court to take judicial 4 notice of prison isolation logs and an order compelling discovery in an unrelated case. (Doc. 5 48.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why isolation logs should be 6 lodged with the Court, and Plaintiff requests the Court to take judicial notice of items not 7 suitable for judicial notice. 8 Judicial Notice 9 AA judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is 10 either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of 11 accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 12 questioned.@ Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). AA court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party 13 and supplied with the necessary information.@ Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). The court may take 14 judicial notice of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.l (N.D. 15 Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981). AJudicial notice 16 is an adjudicative device that alleviates the parties= evidentiary duties at trial, serving as a 17 substitute for the conventional method of taking evidence to establish facts.@ York v. American 18 Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 948, 958 (10th Cir. 1996)(internal quotations omitted); see General 19 Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997). 20 Defendant’s Arguments 21 Defendant argues that the isolation logs Plaintiff attaches to Plaintiff’s request for 22 judicial notice are not facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute, because the information 23 in the isolation logs are not (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial 24 court, or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy 25 cannot reasonably be questioned. 26 Defendant also argues that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to take 27 judicial notice of discovery documents, because he provides no explanation of what specific 28 information the court should take judicial notice of or why the court should do so. 2 1 Defendant also argues that the isolation logs Plaintiff requests the Court to take judicial 2 notice of contain information that should not be in the public record, such as inmates’ 3 identification numbers, cell locations, and movement information, as well as indication of when 4 security checks were completed and whose cells were searched. 5 Discussion 6 Plaintiff requests the court to take judicial notice of three documents: 7 1. 8 Attachment 4 [to Plaintiff’s Request], a copy of the isolation log book (CDCR 114) which evidences all inmates movements; 9 2. “Order granting motion to compel personnel files of defendants, maintenance 10 logs, log books, and Plaintiff’s central file.” (Doc. 77 from case 1:03-cv-06364- 11 LJO-DLB (PC) - Fields v. Ruiz, et al.) 12 3. Excerpts of record 506-507 (CDCR 114) isolation log evidencing movements of 13 inmates (e.g., time in and time out to law library). (from Ninth Circuit case 08- 14 16598 - Fields v. Ruiz, et al.) 15 (Doc. 48 at 1-2.) 16 Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to take judicial notice of these 17 documents. Plaintiff merely requests the court to take judicial notice of the documents, without 18 further explanation. 19 To the extent that Plaintiff intends to submit the documents as evidence, Plaintiff is 20 reminded that the court cannot serve as a repository for the parties= evidence. The parties may 21 not file evidence with the court until the course of litigation brings the evidence into question. 22 Plaintiff is also reminded that discovery is closed in this action and none of the parties’ 23 discovery documents are at issue. 24 For these reasons, the court finds no good cause to take judicial notice of the documents 25 submitted by Plaintiff, and Defendant’s motion to deny Plaintiff’s request shall be granted. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 3 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. 4 Defendant’s motion to strike or deny Plaintiff’s second request for judicial notice, filed on December 30, 2013, is GRANTED; and 5 2. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, filed on December 6, 2013, is DENIED. 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10 11 12 January 30, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 6i0kij8d 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?