Miller v. Adonis, et al.

Filing 24

ORDER Denying Request For Judicial Notice As Moot (Doc. 23 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/7/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CHARLES A. MILLER,

11

Plaintiff,

12

1:12-cv-00353-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE AS MOOT

vs.
(Doc. 23.)

13
14
15

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Charles A. Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Fresno

20

County Superior Court on June 15, 2010 (Case #10CECG02100). On March 8, 2012, defendants

21

Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez (“Removing Defendants”) removed the case

22

to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (federal

23

question). (Doc. 1.) On March 8, 2012, defendants California Department of Corrections and

24

Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), Ahmed, Anderson, Chudy, Duenas, Eddings, Pascual, and Walker

25

(“Consenting Defendants”) joined in the Notice of Removal of Action. (Doc. 4.)

26
27
28

On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for the Court to take judicial notice of certain state
court documents filed in Case #10CECG02100. (Doc. 23.)
1

1

II.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

2

“A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1)

3

generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready

4

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid.

5

201(b). “A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary

6

information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). The court may take judicial notice of court records. Valerio v.

7

Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.l (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert.

8

denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981). “Judicial notice is an adjudicative device that alleviates the parties’

9

evidentiary duties at trial, serving as a substitute for the conventional method of taking evidence to

10

establish facts.” York v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 948, 958 (10th Cir. 1996)(internal

11

quotations omitted); see General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1081

12

(7th Cir. 1997).

13

Plaintiff requests the Court to take judicial notice of Answers filed by defendants in the prior

14

state court action, Case #10CECG02100, before this case was removed to federal court. Plaintiff’s

15

request is moot in light of the fact that on October 26, 2012, the Court took judicial notice of all of the

16

documents previously filed in the state court action. (Doc. 19 at 4 fn.1.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request

17

for judicial notice shall be denied.1

18

III.

19
20

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

filed on March 4, 2013, is DENIED as moot.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:
6i0kij

March 7, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26

1

27

In the request for judicial notice, Plaintiff presumes that the filing of an Answer by a defendant in the state court
actions precludes the federal court from dismissing that defendant during the court’s screening of the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff cites no authority, and the Court finds no authority, for this presumption.

28

2