(PC) Hammler v. Clark et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice 20 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/24/2019. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALLEN HAMMLER,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK, et.al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00373-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
[ECF No. 20]

Plaintiff Allen Hammler is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for judicial notice. Plaintiff requests that the Court
take judicial notice of several CDCR Form 22 requests signed by correctional officers.
Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court to take judicial notice of any facts

23

which may be “accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

24

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) and (d). However, a Court may only take judicial notice of facts

25

contained in a state agency’s records where the facts are not subject to a reasonable dispute.” Brown

26

v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 931 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2005). “[A] party requesting judicial notice bears the

27

burden of persuading the trial judge that the fact is a proper matter for judicial notice.” In re Tyrone F.

28

Conner Corporation, 140 B.R. 771, 781 (1992). “To sustain its burden in persuading the trial judge
1

1

that the adjudicative fact sought to be noticed is in fact proper for notice under Federal Rule of

2

Evidence 201, the party must (1) persuade the court that the particular fact is not reasonably subject to

3

dispute and is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to a source ‘whose accuracy

4

cannot reasonably be questioned’ ….” Id. at 781.

5

The Court does not take judicial notice of documentation; rather, it takes judicial notice of facts

6

not subject to reasonable dispute. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. The CDCR Form 22 requests submitted by

7

Plaintiff are not the sort of documentation of which judicial notice may be taken. It cannot be said that

8

the contents of Plaintiff’s prison records are facts generally known within the Court’s territorial

9

jurisdiction or that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot

10

reasonably be questioned. The typical way for a party to submit form documentation is to attach such

11

documentation to a properly noticed motion or opposition to a motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

12

motion for judicial notice is denied.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

16

April 24, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2