Seguin v. Suttell et al

Filing 72

ORDER granting in part and denying in part re #39 Motion, #40 Motion, #41 Motion, #42 Motion, #44 Motion, #50 Motion, #54 Motion, #55 Motion, #56 Motion: The court GRANTS in part the requests for judicial notice set forth in Document Nos. 39-42, 44, 50, and 54, 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. The court DENIES the remaining relief sought in Document Nos. 39-42, 44, 50, and 54-56. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B McCafferty (New Hampshire) on 10/2/2013. (Duhamel, John)

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

Civil No. 13-cv-095-JNL-LM

Hon. Paul Suttell et al.
O R D E R
Before the court are nine motions filed by plaintiff (doc.
nos. 39-42, 44, 50, and 54-56), requesting that the court take
judicial notice of certain facts; hold evidentiary hearings on
the alleged existence of bias in the Rhode Island state court
system and her claims of perjury, fraud, and extortion; and/or
refer for prosecution or investigation alleged perjury, “federal
crimes[,] and human rights violations” she describes in her
pleadings.1

1

Defendants have objected to six of those motions.

The nine motions are comprised of seven documents, many of
which include multiple requests for relief. The clerk’s office
docketed Seguin’s September 18, 2013, filing three times,
because Seguin’s title for that motion indicates that three
types of relief were requested. See Doc. Nos. 54-56.
Additionally, a number of the motions seek relief that this
court has previously denied. Document No. 56, for example,
includes a request that this court allow plaintiff to file
documents electronically; this court, in a September 23, 2013,
order (doc. no. 61), denied a similar request made in a
separately-docketed motion. To the extent Sequin’s repetitive
motions can be read to request the magistrate judge’s
reconsideration of earlier rulings, this court finds no ground
for reconsideration. As none of the relevant motions appears
intended to seek the district judge’s reconsideration of the
magistrate judge’s rulings, pursuant to LR Cv 72(c) and 28

See Doc. Nos. 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, and 62.
to one of defendants’ objections.

Plaintiff has replied

See Doc. No. 49 (plaintiff’s

reply to defendant’s objection (doc. no. 45)).

I.

Judicial Notice
In general, the pending motions include requests that this

court take judicial notice of certain facts, including:


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



court documents from cases involving Gero Meyersiek;



demographic statistics about Providence, Rhode Island;



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



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

See, e.g., Doc. No. 54, at 6 (plaintiff moves court to take
judicial notice of Meyersiek court documents).

By seeking

judicial notice of these “facts,” plaintiff is attempting to lay
the groundwork for an as-yet-unfiled objection to defendants’
September 5, 2013, motion to dismiss (doc. no. 46).
This court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts
at any time if the fact “is not subject to reasonable dispute”

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), none are construed as requiring the
district judge’s disposition.
2

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) (emphasis in
original) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff requests that this court take notice of systemic
bias in the Rhode Island state courts.

This court has

previously denied a similar request and finds no reason to
reconsider that order.

See Order (Aug. 20, 2013) (doc. no. 38).

As to plaintiff’s requests concerning the court taking
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 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.14 (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

3

the court documents filed as exhibits to Document No. 54, 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 denies plaintiff’s remaining requests for
judicial notice.

The court further cautions plaintiff not to

clutter this court’s docket with repetitive motions for judicial
notice of matters that are, at best, tangentially connected to
issues in this case.

II.

Hearings as to Bias
The pending motions also include a request that this court

hold an evidentiary hearing to “adequately vet the issue of, and
to adequately scrutinize the issue of structural bias and actual
bias in the Rhode Island court system, both the state and
federal benches.”

That motion is denied, given that this case

remains in the pleading stage.

Furthermore, the scope of the

hearing requested exceeds the scope of issues in this case.

4

III. Investigation or Prosecution
In her pending motions, Seguin has requested that this
court hold a hearing on, or refer for investigation or
prosecution of, plaintiff’s allegations of perjury, fraud,
corruption, and bias in the Rhode Island state government and
court system.

Nothing in the record suggests that any hearing

or referral is necessary.

Moreover, there is no federal right

to have alleged criminal wrongdoers 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. 39-42, 44, 50, and 54, 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

5

motions.

The court DENIES the remaining relief sought in

Document Nos. 39-42, 44, 50, and 54-56.
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
October 2, 2013
cc:

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

LBM:nmd

6