Gosselin v. Tilton et al

Filing 49

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 48 Request for Judicial Notice signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/8/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PASQUAL GOSSELIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:10-cv-01974-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(Doc. 48.)

J. TILTON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Pascual Gosselin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

20

October 12, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed by

21

Plaintiff on October 29, 2012, against defendants Adams, Hubach, Taber, and Latraille

22

(“Defendants”). (Docs. 11, 12.) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on February

23

17, 2015, is pending. (Doc. 43.)

24
25

On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice. (Doc. 48.)
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, “in opposition to motion for summary

10

judgment,” of five documents filed in case number 10-cv-01790-BAM-PC, Rangel v. Tilton:

11

(1) Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket #56, (2) Opposition to Motion for Summary

12

Judgment, Docket #64, (3) Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket #76, (4)

13

Findings and Recommendations re MSJ, Docket #87, and (5) Order Adopting Findings and

14

Recommendations re MSJ, Docket #90.

15

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

16

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

17

Plaintiff seeks to use in support of his opposition to Defendants’ pending motion for summary

18

judgment should be submitted with Plaintiff’s opposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for

19

judicial notice shall be denied.

20

III.

21
22

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

notice, filed on April 6, 2015, is DENIED.

23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 8, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2