Williams v. Biter

Filing 15

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 14 Request for Judicial Notice signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 05/16/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GERRY WILLIAMS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.

1:14-cv-02076-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(Doc. 14.)

M. BITER,

14

Defendant.

15
16

I.

BACKGROUND

17

Gerry Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

19

December 29, 2014. (Doc. 1.) The court screened the Complaint and issued an order on April

20

9, 2015, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 12.)

21

On May 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint and a Request for Judicial

22

Notice. (Docs. 13, 14.)
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is now before the court.

23
24

II.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

questioned.@ Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). AA court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

Plaintiff requests the court to take judicial notice of cases “cited by this court as to

9

Valley Fever and Arsenic tainted drinking water, and toxic environmental hazardous conditions

10

of confinement.” (Doc. 14 at 2:10-12.) Plaintiff lists the cites for 2 cases from the 9th Circuit,

11

1 case from the 7th Circuit, 1 case from the 3rd Circuit, 1 case from the U.S. Supreme Court,

12

and 1 case from the 5th Circuit. Plaintiff has not attached copies of the case decisions to which

13

he cites. Plaintiff requests the court to “take Judicial Notice that each of the cases listed above

14

is similar to Plaintiff’s case.” (Doc. 14 at 3:21-22.)

15

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

16

Plaintiff’s request would require the court to review all of the listed cases and perform an

17

analysis as to the similarities of each case to Plaintiff’s case. The result of such analysis is not

18

an existing fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute, and therefore is not subject to judicial

19

notice. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request must be denied.

20

III.

21
22

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial

Notice, filed on May 11, 2015, is DENIED.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 16, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2