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)
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?