Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

ORDER denying without prejudice 26 Motion for the taking of judicial notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 9/29/2017. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
THOMAS DEWEY ROBERTS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-565-Orl-18TBS

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without oral argument on Plaintiff’s Unopposed
Motion for the Court to take Judicial Notice (Doc. 26). Plaintiff asks the Court to take
judicial notice of a document titled “Supplemental Security Income Fraud Involving

Middlemen: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight & the Subcomm. on Human
Res. of the H. Comm. of Ways & Means, 103d Cong. 83-84, 89-90 (1994) (statement of
SSA Commissioner Shirley Chater).
The Court does not know what this document is, how it bears on the case, or if the
information contained in the document is subject to being judicially noticed. For example,
is the information Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of an adjudicative or
legislative fact? Federal Rule of Evidence 201(a) “governs judicial notice of an
adjudicative fact, not a legislative fact.” The Committee Notes explain that, “[a]djudicative
facts are simply the facts of the particular case. Legislative facts, on the other hand, are
those which have relevance to legal reasoning and the lawmaking process, whether in
the formulation of a legal principle or ruling by a judge or court or the enactment of a
legislative body.” Advisory Committee Notes 1972 Proposed Rules.

Now, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. If Plaintiff refiles his motion he
should attach to it, a copy of what he is asking the Court to judicially notice, and better
explain why judicial notice is appropriate under FRE 201 and applicable case law.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 29, 2017.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-2-