Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00094/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00094-14/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Robert Bishop is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s third request for the Court to take judicial notice of 

certain documents, along with a motion to amend his third request for judicial notice to substitute to an 

exhibit to the original motion. (ECF Nos. 74, 76.) Plaintiff requests the Court to take judicial notice 

of several inmate request for interview forms. 

Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court to take judicial notice of any facts 

which may be “accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) and (d). However, a Court may only take judicial notice of facts 

contained in a state agency’s records where the facts are not subject to a reasonable dispute.” Brown 

v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 931 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2005). 

ROBERT BISHOP,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY HARRINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00094-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

[ECF Nos. 74, 76]

Case 1:11-cv-00094-LJO-SAB Document 78 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

First, Plaintiff does not provide any basis other than the attachment of documents to the motion 

to support a finding of judicial notice, and the Court cannot determine the relevancy of the documents. 

Second, the Court will not take judicial notice of documents in a vacuum and these documents are not 

the type of adjudicative facts that are judicially noticeable. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s third request for judicial notice is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00094-LJO-SAB Document 78 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 2