Klein v. Conanan

Filing 48

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request For Judicial Notice (Doc. 47 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/19/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL KLEIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:13-cv-00600-GSA-PC

vs.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(Doc. 47.)

DR. CONANAN,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

Michael Klein (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

23

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on the original

24

Complaint filed by Plaintiff on April 25, 2013, against defendant Dr. Conanan for failure to

25

provide adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)

26

The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28

27

U.S.C. § 636(c).

28

proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment.

(Docs. 5, 15.)

Therefore the undersigned shall conduct any and all

1

1

On October 8, 2014, the court issued a Scheduling Order setting out pretrial deadlines in

2

this action, including a deadline of June 8, 2015, for the completion of discovery, including the

3

filing of motions to compel. (Doc. 28.) Thus, this case is now in the discovery phase.

4

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice, with documents

5

attached. (Doc. 47.)

6

II.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

7

AA judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is

8

either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of

9

accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

10

questioned.@ Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). AA court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party

11

and supplied with the necessary information.@ Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). The court may take

12

judicial notice of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.l (N.D.

13

Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981). AJudicial notice

14

is an adjudicative device that alleviates the parties= evidentiary duties at trial, serving as a

15

substitute for the conventional method of taking evidence to establish facts.@ York v. American

16

Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 948, 958 (10th Cir. 1996)(internal quotations omitted); see General

17

Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997).

18

Plaintiff requests the court to take judicial notice of two documents: (1) Defendant’s

19

Response to Request for Admissions, and (2) A publication of the California Prison Health

20

Care Services addressing inmate care for Hepatitis C. (Doc. 47, Exhs. A & B.) Plaintiff asserts

21

that these documents relate to his claims in this action.

22

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

23

documents. To the extent that Plaintiff intends to submit the documents as evidence in support

24

of his complaint, the court cannot serve as a repository for the parties= evidence. The parties

25

may not file evidence with the court until the course of litigation brings the evidence into

26

question. At this stage of the proceedings, these documents are not at issue. Therefore, the

27

court finds no good cause to take judicial notice of the documents submitted by Plaintiff.

28

///
2

1
2
3

III.

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

notice, filed on March 16, 2015, is DENIED.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 19, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3