Gray v. Johnson et al

Filing 272

ORDER DENYING Requests for Judicial Notice signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/11/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

DANA GRAY,

6

Plaintiff,

7
8

vs.

1:13-cv-01473-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE
(ECF No. 179, 195, 196, 216, 231, 239.)

ROMERO, et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
11

I.

Dana Gray (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

12
13

BACKGROUND

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was filed on September 12, 2013. (ECF No. 1.)

14

On March 13, 2017, April 5, 2017, May 26, 2017, July 24, 2017, and August 7, 2017,

15

Plaintiff filed requests for judicial notice. (ECF No. 179, 195, 196, 216, 231, 239.)

16

II.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

17

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), “[t]he court may judicially notice a fact that is

18

not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s

19

territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose

20

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” “Judicial notice is an adjudicative device that

21

alleviates the parties’ evidentiary duties at trial, serving as a substitute for the conventional

22

method of taking evidence to establish facts.” York v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 948,

23

958 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted); see General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease

24

Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997). “Courts may only take judicial notice

25

of adjudicative facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute.” United States v. Ritchie, 342

26

F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). Adjudicative facts “are simply

27

the facts of the particular case, . . those to which the law is applied.” Fed. R. Evid. 201, Adv.

28

Comm. Note to Subd. (a).
1

1

Plaintiff requests the court to take judicial notice (1) “that Plaintiff has entered ‘Brief

2

Objection to 3-2-17 Order’ and a request for extension of time to file further objections to the

3

findings and recommendations issued on January 18, 2017 (ECF No. 179); (2) of the

4

“relatedness and timeliness” of the medical data contained in Dr. Donna Anderson’s

5

declaration (ECF No. 195); (3) of Plaintiff’s “supporting documents used as exhibits in her

6

Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendations and Findings” (ECF No. 196); (4) of the

7

“eleven documents in Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration packet of 4-27-17” (ECF No. 216);

8

(5) “to confirm that the following Plaintiff [sic] pleadings and motions are still open in this

9

case: 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 198, 204, 205, and all motions and pleadings in 204 exhibits, all

10

motions and pleadings within 208-217 inclusive, all motions and pleadings within 222-226,

11

inclusive, and all motions . . . in this packet [and] all the documents in support of them” (ECF

12

No. 213); and (6) of Plaintiff’s pro bono jailhouse expert witness acting as assistant to Plaintiff

13

in this case (ECF No. 239).

14

The court finds no good cause to take judicial notice of these facts. The fact that

15

Plaintiff has filed particular documents in this case, that particular motions are pending in this

16

case, that medical information in Dr. Anderson’s declaration is related and timely, or that a

17

jailhouse expert witness is assisting Plaintiff in this case are not adjudicative facts subject to

18

judicial notice in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice shall be denied.

19

III.

CONCLUSION

20

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

21

notice, filed on March 13, 2017, April 5, 2017, May 26, 2017, July 24, 2017, and August 7,

22

2017, are DENIED.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 11, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2