Miller v. Kastelic et al

Filing 168

MINUTE ORDER denying 162 Motion Requesting this Court to Take Judicial Notice of Known Danger of 211 Security Threat Group as set forth by the Colorado Court of Appeals in People v. Davis, 296 P.3d 219 and 163 Motion Requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice of Pending Criminal Assault Charges from 211 Gang Members at Crowley County Correctional Facility by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/29/14.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02677-CMA-MEH
LARRY C. MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN KASTELIC,
DANIEL REIMER,
LT. RIDGWELL,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 29, 2014.
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting this Court to Take Judicial Notice of
Known Danger of 211 Security Threat Group as set forth by the Colorado Court of Appeals in
People v. Davis, 296 P.3d 219 (Colo. App. 2012) [filed January 27, 2014; docket #162] and Motion
Requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice of Pending Criminal Assault Charges from 211 Gang
Members at Crowley County Correctional Facility [filed January 27, 2014; docket #163].
The Court has authority to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that are not subject to
reasonable dispute. Fed. R. Evid. 201(a)-(b). A fact is not subject to reasonable dispute if it “is
generally known within the trial court's jurisdiction; or can be accurately and readily determined
from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Plaintiff’s
motion for judicial notice of a Colorado Court of Appeals case seeks recognition of statements of
law, not facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute. Thus, his request does not constitute a
proper request for judicial notice.
Courts may exercise discretion to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records in courts
“concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand.” United States v.
Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1183, 1192, n.5 (10th Cir. 2007). However, the pending criminal assault charges
are unrelated to the current case, and irrelevant to the Court’s analysis in addressing the Motion for
Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions for Judicial Notice are denied.