Vaughan v. Ky Army National Guard et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM ORDER: that Plaintiff Michael Dean Vaughan's Request for Judicial Notice (Record No. 23 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 8/15/2012.(AKR)cc: COR, Plaintiff via US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
(at Frankfort)
MICHAEL DEAN VAUGHAN,
Plaintiff,
V.
KENTUCKY ARMY NATIONAL
GUARD and UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3: 12-35-DCR

MEMORANDUM ORDER

*** *** *** ***
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the motion by Plaintiff Michael Dean
Vaughan for the Court to take judicial notice of certain Army Regulations and sections of the
Kentucky Revised Statutes. [Record No. 23] Having reviewed the motion, the Court determines
that a response is not necessary.
The Court “must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with
the necessary information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2). Additionally, the Court “may take judicial
notice at any stage of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). Judicial notice is appropriate for
“a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid.
201(b)(2). It is true that, “[f]or over one hundred years, it was quite natural for judges to take
judicial notice of statutes.” United States v. Dedman, 527 F.3d 577, 586 (6th Cir. 2008). More
recently, however, the Sixth Circuit has “cabined the concept of ‘judicial notice’ to facts alone.”
-1-

Id. at 587 (citing Toth v. Grand Trunk R.R., 306 F.3d 335, 349 (6th Cir. 2002); United States v.
Wynn, 987 F.2d 354, 358 (6th Cir. 1993)). This is because “judicial notice is generally not the
appropriate means to establish the legal principles governing the case.” Toth, 306 F.3d at 349.
Despite this general principle, a “legal rule may be a proper fact for judicial notice if it is offered
to establish the factual context of the case, as opposed to stating the governing law.” Id. As
Vaughan himself explains, however, the “content of these Army Regulations and KY Revised
Statutes goes to the heart of this instant action and goes towards the plaintiff’s arguments and
defenses.” [Record No. 23-2, p. 3] Therefore, the statutes and regulations are not facts that are
subject to judicial notice in this matter. See Toth, 306 F.3d at 349. Being sufficiently advised,
it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff Michael Dean Vaughan’s Request for Judicial Notice [Record
No. 23] is DENIED.
This 15th day of August, 2012.

-2-