Seguin v. Textron, Inc. et al

Filing 156

ORDER: The Court GRANTS in part the requests for judicial notice set forth in document numbers #46 , #48 , #62 , #63 , #65 , #80 , #81 , #82 , #83 , #86 , and #99 , to the extent that the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the articles, websites, blogs, court documents, and demographic statistics cited by Plaintiff and attached as exhibits to those motions and requests. The Court DENIES the remaining relief sought in document numbers #46 , #48 , #62 , #63 , #65 , #80 , #81 , #82 , #83 , #86 , #99 , #126 , #128 , #141 , and #144 . (The Court denies Plaintiff's motions seeking hearings and/or referrals for investigations and prosecutions.) -- So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B McCafferty (New Hampshire) on 10/17/2013. (Duhamel, John)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Mary Seguin
v.

Civil No. 13-cv-012-SJM-LM

Textron et al.
O R D E R
Before the court are fifteen motions and requests for
judicial notice filed by plaintiff (doc. nos. 46, 48, 62, 63,
65, 80-83, 86, 99, 126, 128, 141, 144), requesting that the
court take judicial notice of certain matters; hold evidentiary
hearings on the alleged existence of bias in the Rhode Island
state court system and on her claims of perjury, fraud,
extortion, and other crimes; and/or refer her allegations of
perjury, federal crimes, and “human rights violations” for
further investigation and prosecution.

Defendants have objected

to those motions, and plaintiff has responded to defendants’
objections.

See Doc. Nos. 55, 57-59, 88, 95, 96, 100-104, 106,

111-113, 116, 121, 122, 124, 135, 136, 143, and 145-147
(defendants’ objections)1; Doc. Nos. 80, 87, and 98 (plaintiff’s
responses).

1

This court previously denied motions to strike filed by
defendants relating to these requests for judicial notice. See
Endorsed Order (Oct. 1, 2013) (denying motions to strike (doc.
nos. 67-68, 75-78)).

A number of plaintiff’s motions at issue seek relief that
this court has previously denied.

To the extent any of Sequin’s

motions at issue can be read to request that the magistrate
judge reconsider earlier rulings in this case, this court finds
no ground for reconsideration.

As none of the relevant motions

seeks the district judge’s reconsideration of the magistrate
judge’s rulings, pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), none are construed
as requiring the district judge’s disposition.
I.

Judicial Notice
In general, plaintiff has requested that this court take

judicial notice of certain matters, including:


the existence of corruption and bias in Rhode Island
state government and in the state court system;



the “common knowledge” that there is corruption and
bias in Rhode Island state government and in the state
court system;



court documents from cases involving Gero Meyersiek
and other litigants, which plaintiff has attached to
her filings as exhibits;



demographic statistics about Providence, Rhode Island;



the existence of certain newspaper and journal
articles, blogs, and websites; and



the employment history and relationships among certain
individuals in Rhode Island, including public
officials and judges.

2

This court may take judicial notice of “adjudicative facts”
at any time if the fact “is not subject to reasonable dispute”
either because it is “generally known within the trial court’s
territorial jurisdiction,” or “can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned.”

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

“‘A high degree of

indisputability is an essential prerequisite,’” before the court
should take judicial notice of any adjudicative fact.

United

States v. Bello, 194 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 1999) (citation
omitted) (emphasis in Bello).
A.

Bias

Plaintiff requests that this court take notice that
systemic bias in the Rhode Island state courts both exists and
is a matter of common knowledge.

Plaintiff has failed to carry

her burden of showing, however, that either the existence of
bias or the “common knowledge” of its existence is indisputable.
Therefore, the court declines to take judicial notice of those
matters.
B.

Documentary Material and Websites

Plaintiff next requests that the court take judicial notice
of articles, blogs, and websites, which she has reproduced and
filed as exhibits to her motions.

The court takes judicial

notice of the readily ascertainable fact that those publications

3

exist, but declines to take notice of their contents, or of
plaintiff’s characterizations of their significance.

See Benak

ex rel. Alliance Premier Growth Fund v. Alliance Capital Mgmt.
L.P., 435 F.3d 396, 401 n.15 (3d Cir. 2006) (courts may “‘take
judicial notice of newspaper articles for the fact of their
publication’” (citation omitted)).

Similarly, the court takes

judicial notice of the existence of the court documents filed as
exhibits by plaintiff, and further takes judicial notice that
the United States Census Bureau has reported a statistic for the
percentage of the population over age 5 living in households in
Providence, Rhode Island, where a language other than English is
spoken at home.

In so ruling, however, the court expressly

declines to accept the truth of plaintiff’s characterization of
any court document or demographic statistic.

The court declines

to take judicial notice of any other statistic cited by
plaintiff, where she has neither cited to the precise government
webpage reporting the statistic, nor provided such information
in hard-copy.
C.

Remaining Requests

The court denies plaintiff’s remaining requests for
judicial notice, either because plaintiff has failed to show
that the matter at issue is indisputable, or because she has
asked for judicial notice of matters that are not within the

4

scope of Fed. R. Evid. 201.2

The court cautions plaintiff not to

clutter the docket with additional, repetitive requests and
motions for judicial notice of matters that are, at best,
tangentially connected to issues actually in this case.

II.

Hearings
A.

Bias

The pending motions also include a request that this court
hold an evidentiary hearing to scrutinize the issue of
structural bias and actual bias in the Rhode Island court
system.

That motion is denied, given that this case remains in

the pleading stage.
B.

Investigation or Prosecution

In her pending motions, plaintiff has requested that this
court hold a hearing on, or refer for grand jury or other
investigation or prosecution of, plaintiff’s allegations of
perjury, fraud, and corruption.

Nothing in the record, however,

suggests that any hearing or referral is necessary.

Moreover,

there is no federal right to have alleged criminal wrongdoers
2

Rule 201 concerns only “adjudicative facts,” that is, facts
“germane to what happened in the case.” United States v. Bello,
194 F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 1999); see also Qualley v. Clo-Tex
Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1123, 1128 (8th Cir. 2000) (adjudicative
facts “‘normally go to the jury in a jury case’” and “‘relate to
the parties, their activities, their properties, their
businesses’” (citations omitted)).
5

brought to justice.

See Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 87

(1981); Nieves-Ramos v. Gonzalez-De-Rodriguez, 737 F. Supp. 727,
728 (D.P.R. 1990) (citing Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S.
614, 619 (1973) (“a private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or non prosecution of
another”)).

Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff’s motions

seeking hearings and/or referrals for investigations and
prosecutions.
Conclusion
The court GRANTS in part the requests for judicial notice
set forth in Document Nos. 46, 48, 62, 63, 65, 80-83, 86, and
99, to the extent that the court takes judicial notice of the
existence of the articles, websites, blogs, court documents, and
demographic statistics cited by plaintiff and attached as
exhibits to those motions and requests.

The court DENIES the

remaining relief sought in Document Nos. 46, 48, 62, 63, 65, 8083, 86, 99, 126, 128, 141, and 144.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
October 17, 2013
cc:

Mary Seguin
Rebecca Tedford Partington, Esq.
Susan Urso, Esq.

6

Erika J. Lindberg, Esq.
Mark W. Freel, Esq.
Rachel K. Caldwell, Esq.
Joseph Avanzato, Esq.
Leslie D. Parker, Esq.
Gordon P. Cleary, Esq.
LBM:nmd

7