Collins (ID 79661) v. Bebb et al

Filing 219

ORDER ENTERED: The clerk's office is directed to correct the docket entry for Plaintiff Jeremy Lee Collins' filing titled "Judicial Notice" (ECF No. 192 ) to reflect that it is a "Motion to Take Judicial Notice." The "Motion to Take Judicial Notice" (ECF No. 192 ) is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell on 11/14/19. Mailed to pro se party Jeremy Lee Collins by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JEREMY LEE COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALEX BEBB, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-3050-CM-ADM

ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Jeremy Lee Collins’ filing titled “Judicial
Notice.” (ECF No. 192.) The court construes this as a motion to take judicial notice because Mr.
Collins seeks an order taking judicial notice of certain matters, including that the doctrines of res
judicata and collateral estoppel bar the parties from relitigating facts and elements of any alleged
crimes. Mr. Collins also asks the court to take judicial notice that FED. R. EVID. 403 and 404
preclude defendants from introducing potentially prejudicial evidence, character evidence, and
evidence of crimes and acts, among other things. Defendants oppose the motion. For the reasons
stated below, the motion is denied without prejudice.
FED. R. EVID. 201 permits the court to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts.
Adjudicative facts are “simply the facts of the particular case.” United States v. Iverson, 818 F.3d
1015, 1030 (10th Cir. 2016). The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable
dispute because it: “(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can
be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned.” FED. R. EVID. 201(b). In applying Rule 201, the court must be mindful that if it takes
judicial notice of a fact whose application is in dispute, the court forecloses a party from disputing
the matter through rebuttal evidence, cross-examination, or argument. United States v. Boyd, 289

F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp.,
128 F.3d 1074, 1083 (7th Cir. 1997)).
In this case, Mr. Collins’ motion generally references matters concerning his prior state
court criminal conviction for conduct overlapping some of the facts giving rise to this action. For
example, Mr. Collins references that “the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel will bar
‘Defendants’ and ‘Plaintiff’ from relitigating facts and elements of any alleged crimes [in the state
court criminal case and the subsequent appeal].”

(ECF No. 192, at 2.)

Regarding those

proceedings, Mr. Collins goes on to state that any fact “expressly admitted is ‘conclusive’ and
established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” (Id.)
Mr. Collins does not explain with any specificity the adjudicative facts to which he requests the
court take judicial notice. On this record, the undersigned cannot determine which, if any, of these
matters are not subject to a reasonable dispute. Because the court cannot determine the specific
adjudicative facts at issue, the court also cannot determine whether such facts are generally known
within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction or whether they can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. To the extent Mr.
Collins argues that collateral estoppel or res judicata apply, his opening motion does not brief these
issues, and so the court declines to engage in this analysis. See also Donaldson v. United States
Dep't of Treasury, No. 17-1213-EFM-GEB, 2018 WL 1116675, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 1, 2018)
(“Taking judicial notice of legal conclusions is not the proper use of this ‘evidentiary
mechanism.’”).
Finally, Mr. Collins references Rules 403 and 404 and evidence concerning his past
conduct and character. Issues concerning the admissibility of evidence are more appropriately
raised on a motion in limine or through objections made during trial. These matters are not

2

adjudicative facts of which the court may take judicial notice. For these reasons, the court denies
Mr. Collins motion, but it does so without prejudice in the event that Mr. Collins seeks to file a
motion in limine asking the court to limit or preclude defendants from introducing certain matters
into evidence, or in the event that Mr. Collins is able to file a more specific and narrowly tailored
motion to take judicial notice that meets the legal standard set forth above.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the clerk’s office is directed to correct the docket
entry for Plaintiff Jeremy Lee Collins’ filing titled “Judicial Notice” (ECF No. 192) to reflect that
it is a “Motion to Take Judicial Notice.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that said “Motion to Take Judicial Notice” (ECF No. 192)
is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 14, 2019, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Angel D. Mitchell
Angel D. Mitchell
U.S. Magistrate Judge

3