Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02637/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02637-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

cal 

1 06cv2637

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MARTEL ALMARAZ,

Petitioner,

v.

J. TILTON, WARDEN,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv2637 LAB(AJB)

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to for

Judicial Notice of Exhibits and Granting

Petitioner Final Extension of time in which

to File Objections to Respondent’s Motion

to Dismiss

[Doc. No. 10]

Petitioner filed a motion to lodge exhibits and a motion requesting the Court take judicial notice

of the lodged exhibits. Pursuant to Rule 201 , a court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts “not

subject to reasonable dispute.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Facts are indisputable, and thus subject to judicial

notice, only if they are either “generally known” under Rule 201(b)(1) or “capable of accurate and ready

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned” under Rule

201(b)(2). Taking judicial notice of findings of fact from another case exceeds the limits of Rule 201 .

See M/V Am. Queen v. San Diego Marine Constr. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1491 (9th Cir.1983) (stating

general rule that “a court may not take judicial notice of proceedings or records in another cause so as to

Case 3:06-cv-02637-LAB-AJB Document 13 Filed 05/18/07 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

1

 Factual findings in one case ordinarily are not admissible for their truth in another case through

judicial notice. See 21 Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth A. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice & Procedure §

5106 (Supp.2001) (stating “courts should distinguish between taking judicial notice of the truth of some

extrajudicial fact recited in a court record and the use of those facts for some purpose that does not

depend on the truth of the facts recited”). In agreement with M/V Am. Queen, other circuits have held

that a court may not take judicial notice of findings of fact from a different case for their truth. Taylor v.

Charter Med. Corp., 162 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.1998); Int'l Star Class Yacht Racing Ass'n v. Tommy

Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 146 F.3d 66, 70 (2d Cir.1998); Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1082-83 & n. 6 (7th Cir.1997); Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. v. Delta Res., Inc. (In re Delta

Res., Inc.), 54 F.3d 722, 726 (11th Cir.1995); United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th

Cir.1994); Holloway v. Lockhart, 813 F.2d 874, 878-79 (8th Cir.1987).

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\HABEAS\Almaraz\06cv2637. Almaraz.v.Hernandez.Order.Deny. Jud.Not.wpd 2 06cv2637

supply, without formal introduction of evidence, facts essential to support a contention in a cause then

before it”).1

 As such, Petitioner’s documents will be lodged with the Court and become part of the record to be

considered in this case, however, Petitioner’s motion requesting the Court take judicial notice of the

exhibits filed is DENIED as judicial notice of these exhibits is not appropriate for the reasons set forth

above.

Petitioner was granted an extension of time to file an Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss. Petitioner was to file his Opposition on or before April 17, 2007, however, as of the date of

this Order, nothing has been received. As such, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner a final extension

of time to file an Opposition. Petitioner’s Opposition must be filed on or before June 18, 2007, or the

Court will issue a Report and Recommendation on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss based upon the

merits of the motion, Petition and exhibits filed to date in this case.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2007

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-02637-LAB-AJB Document 13 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 2