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)

Download PDF
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

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?