Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05545/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05545-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM RAINER,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. CALDERON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05545-LJO-DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS and

TO CONVERT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 39 )

I. Order

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff William Rainer, (“plaintiff”) is currently a prisoner in Los Angeles County, at all

times applicable herein was, and after discharge from the Los Angeles County jail, apparently

will once again become a state prisoner. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s

complaint, filed April 5, 2004, against defendants Calderon, Sullivan, Woodley, Todd and Lopez

(“defendants”) for allegedly infringing upon plaintiff’s First Amendment right to freedom of

religion. On May 9, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On December 6, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the

pleadings, and to convert defendants’ motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. 

These motions have been deemed submitted. Local Rule 78-230(m).

Case 1:04-cv-05545-LJO-DLB Document 42 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

B. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

“After the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party

may move for judgment on the pleadings.” FRCP 12(c). 

The pleadings in this case are not closed. Thus, plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings is premature.

C. Converting Defendants Motion to Dismiss to a Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff also moved to convert defendants’ motion to dismiss to a motion for summary

judgment – arguing that defendants went outside the pleadings by discussing injunctive (rather

than declaratory) relief in their motion to dismiss. 

However, the only item outside the pleadings raised in defendants’ motion to dismiss was

the docket entry as to plaintiff’s change of address. Facts subject to judicial notice may be

considered on a motion to dismiss. Mullins v. United States Bank. Ct. 828 F.2d 1385 (9 Cir. th

1987) citing Mack v. South Bay Beer Distrib., Inc. 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9 Cir. 1986) overruled th

on other grounds. The Court may take judicial notice of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade

Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.l (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454

U.S. 1126 (1981). The docket entry is a proper item for judicial notice. Therefore, defendants

did not go outside the pleadings in their motion to dismiss such that plaintiff’s motion to convert

it to a motion for summary judgment should be denied.

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleading be denied

as premature; and

(2) plaintiff’s motion to convert defendants motion to dismiss to a motion for

summary judgment be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 24, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05545-LJO-DLB Document 42 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 2