Ekdahl v. Diaz
Filing
46
ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 44 Motion request for judicial notice signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/12/2016. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EMIL JOSEPH EKDAHL,
Petitioner,
12
13
14
15
v.
RALPH DIAZ, Warden,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-00542-AWI-JLT
ORDER GRANTING NUNC PRO TUNC
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE
(Doc. 44)
16
17
In support of his traverse, Petitioner filed a request for judicial notice of documents issued by
18
the Board of Parole Hearings. (Doc. 44) Respondent did not oppose this request. When considering
19
the merits of Petitioner’s claims, the Court considered and relied upon these documents. (Doc. 45 at
20
13, n. 4) However, the Court failed to explicitly rule on Petitioner’s motion at that time.
21
The Court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by
22
resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States
23
v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). The record of the Board of Parole Hearings is a
24
source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of these
25
records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise
26
Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.); see also
27
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing
28
Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th. Cir. 1980). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request
1
1
that the Court take judicial notice (Doc. 44) of the records proffered by Plaintiff nunc pro tunc.
2
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 12, 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?