Dawson, Jr. v. Two Unknown Nurses
ORDER denying 37 Motion to Take Judicial Notice by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 3/9/15.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01920-MSK-NYW
JAMES RALPH DAWSON, JR.,
MEREDITH LLOYD, Nurse, and
ELOISE OLIVERAS, Nurse,
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This civil action comes before the court on Plaintiff James Ralph Dawson’s Motion to
Take Judicial Notice (“Motion”). [#37 filed February 5, 2015]. Plaintiff seeks an Order taking
judicial notice that “failing to follow the Fed. R. Civ. P. on service of pleading on opposing
parties is becoming a pattern of abuse by C.D.O.C. Defendants.” Id. The matter was referred to
this Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Order Referring Case dated October 7, 2014 [#11] and
memorandum dated February 6, 2015 [#38].
A court may take judicial notice of matters that are verifiable with certainty. See St.
Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1979)
(citing 9 Wigmore, Evidence, 3rd Ed., 1940, s 2571; Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure, Civil, s 2410).
On a motion for summary judgment, the court may consider
stipulations, concessions of counsel, transcripts, exhibits and other papers, the court’s own
records and files, and facts that are part of its public records. Id. (internal citations omitted).
No party has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and this court cannot verify with
certainty at this stage in the proceedings that Defendants Meredith Lloyd and Eloise Oliveras
(“Defendants”) have engaged in any pattern of activity of failing to serve, much less an abusive
pattern. Moreover, Plaintiff would need to first plead then prove the existence of such a pattern
through the use of documentary evidence. Cf. Buell v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 321 F.2d 468
(10th Cir. 1963) (“generally, that which may be judicially noticed need not be pleaded).
However, this court notes that a certificate of service is attached to Defendant Meredith Lloyd
includes a certificate of service bearing the name, inmate number, and address of Plaintiff as
reflected on the court docket [#40], which is taken as prima facie evidence of service. See
Chesson v. Jaquez, 986 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir.1993); Portley-El v. Milyard, No. 06-cv-00146PSF-MJW, 2006 WL 3371642, at *1 (D. Colo. Nov. 21, 2006).
As Defendants did not file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion, the court reminds
Defendants that they are required to ensure that proper service is effected for all filings with the
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) The Motion is DENIED; and
(2) Defendants must serve Plaintiff with all documents, including those electronically
filed with the court, pursuant to Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DATED: March 9, 2015
BY THE COURT:
s/Nina Y. Wang_________ _
United States Magistrate Judge
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?