Applegate v. Trausch
Filing
39
ORDER RE Request for Judicial Notice; ORDER for Plaintiff to FILE Updated Status Report within 14 Days, as Directed by this Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/28/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRIAN APPLEGATE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
CHRISTIAN TRAUSCH,
15
Defendant.
1:15-cv-00811-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER RE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE
(ECF No. 38.)
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE UPDATED
STATUS REPORT WITHIN 14 DAYS, AS
DIRECTED BY THIS ORDER
16
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
Brian C. Applegate (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 29, 2015, Plaintiff
20
filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) The case now proceeds with the
21
initial Complaint, against Defendant Christian Trausch (“Defendant”), on Plaintiff’s Eighth
22
Amendment claim and related state law claims.
23
On March 29, 2016, on Defendant’s motion, the court stayed the proceedings in this
24
action pending resolution of Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandate in the Sacramento County
25
Superior Court. (ECF No. 24.) On July 25, 2016, the court issued an order continuing the stay
26
pending final resolution of Plaintiff’s petition in state court. (ECF No. 30.)
27
On February 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a status report, providing evidence that he had
28
appealed the Superior Court’s denial of his petition to the Third District Court of Appeal, where
1
1
it was denied on or about January 4, 2017.1 (ECF No. 38 at 13-14.) Plaintiff notifies the court
2
that he has “contested the COA denial of his petition, by filing anew in the California Supreme
3
Court.” (Id. at 1.)
4
II.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
5
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), “[t]he court may judicially notice a fact that is
6
not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s
7
territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
8
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
9
Plaintiff has requested that the court take judicial notice of his file at the Sacramento
10
County Superior Court, Case no. 34-2015-80002056, as evidence “in rebutting summary
11
judgment challenge to his claims.” (ECF No. 38 at 1.) Plaintiff also requests the court to
12
acquire the records for him from the Sacramento Superior Court.
13
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to acquire, nor take judicial notice of
14
his state court records. There is no motion for summary judgment motion pending in this
15
action. Moreover, in the event that a motion for summary judgment is filed the court shall not
16
assist Plaintiff with obtaining state court records on his behalf. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request
17
for judicial notice shall be denied.
18
III.
STATUS OF STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS
19
Plaintiff shall be required to file a status report within 14 days, updating the court on the
20
status of his state court proceedings and whether he has filed a petition for review at the
21
California Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 8.500(a) of the California Rules of Court.2 If
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
On February 10, 2017, Defendant also filed a status report indicating that Plaintiff had
appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal, Case No. C083150, and that the Third District Court of Appeal
entered an order denying the writ of mandate and issuing a remittitur on January 6, 2017, after which time the
jurisdiction of the trial court ordinarily reattaches. (ECF No. 37.)
2
Pursuant to Rule 8.500(a) of the California Rules of Court, “[a] party may file a petition in the
[California] Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order,
except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court.” Cal. R. Ct.
8.500(a)(1). A petition for review must be served and filed within 10 days after the Court of Appeal decision is
final in that court. Cal. R. Ct. 8.500(e)(1).
2
1
Plaintiff has filed a petition for review, he is required to submit a conformed copy of the filed
2
petition, date-stamped by the Supreme Court.
3
III.
CONCLUSION
4
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1.
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, filed on February 24, 2017, is DENIED;
6
2.
Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is
7
required to file an updated status report and a copy of his petition for review, if
8
any, as instructed by this order; and
9
3.
10
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this
case.
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 28, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?