James v. Emmens et al

Filing 120

ORDER Denying 118 Plaintiff's Request to Take Judicial Notice of Proceedings in Another Case Regarding County Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 06/01/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

KYLE ROBERT JAMES,

Case No.: 16cv2823 WQH (NLS)
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL
NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS IN
ANOTHER CASE REGARDING
COUNTY COUNSEL

DEPUTY EMMENS, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

[ECF No. 118]

15
16

Plaintiff Kyle Robert James, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

17

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter

18

requesting that the Court take judicial notice of a court order in another case regarding an

19

alleged contempt finding against county counsel Melissa Holmes. ECF No. 118.

20

Plaintiff does not attach the court order, but instead attaches an article from the San

21

Diego Union Tribune regarding the ruling. Id.

22

The Court may take judicial notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable

23

dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose

24

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201. Judicial notice, however,

25

is inappropriate where the facts to be noticed are irrelevant. Ruiz v. City of Santa Maria,

26

160 F.3d 543, 548 n.13 (9th Cir. 1998); Turnacliff v. Westly, 546 F.3d 1113, 1120 n.4

27

(9th Cir. 2008); see also BofI Fed. Bank v. Erhart, No. 15CV2353 BAS (NLS), 2016 WL

28

4150983, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016); Kennedy v. Paramount Pictures Corp., No.
1
16cv2823 WQH (NLS)

1

12CV372-WQH-WMC, 2013 WL 1285109, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2013); Shalaby v.

2

Bernzomatic, 281 F.R.D. 565, 571 (S.D. Cal. 2012). Here, Plaintiff has not explained

3

how a court order regarding county counsel’s discovery conduct in another case has any

4

bearing on his case. There are no pending motions in front of the Court where this

5

information would be relevant. Moreover, Defendants are not even represented by the

6

same county counsel. Thus, the Court DENIES the motion for judicial notice.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 1, 2018

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16cv2823 WQH (NLS)