Bishop v. Harrington et al

Filing 73

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Requests For Judicial Notice (ECF Nos. 70 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/16/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT BISHOP,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
KELLY HARRINGTON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00094-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
[ECF Nos.

Plaintiff Robert Bishop is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On August 10, 2015, August 14, 2015, and September 11, 2015, respectively, Plaintiff filed

20

requests for judicial notice of several documents, including correspondence to defense counsel, inmate

21

grievances, inmate request for interview forms, and request for correspondence forms. (ECF Nos. 61,

22

63, 70.)

23

Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court to take judicial notice of any facts

24

which may be “accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

25

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) and (d). However, a Court may only take judicial notice of facts

26

contained in a state agency’s records where the facts are not subject to a reasonable dispute.” Brown

27

v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 931 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2005).

28
1

1

First, Plaintiff does not provide any basis other than the attachment of documents to the motion

2

to support a finding of judicial notice, and the Court cannot determine the relevancy of the documents.

3

Second, the Court will not take judicial notice of documents in a vacuum and these documents are not

4

the type of adjudicative facts that are judicially noticeable. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. Accordingly,

5

Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are DENIED.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:

9

September 16, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2