Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01854/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01854-3/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

1

 Respondent filed an answer on June 24, 2009, and petitioner filed a traverse on August

25, 2009.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEWAYNE JONES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-1854 GEB EFB P

vs.

D. K. SISTO, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings that

petitioner is not suitable for parole and argues that the decision denied him due process because

it was based solely on petitioner’s commitment offense and allegedly was not supported by any

evidence that petitioner poses a current danger to the community.1

 Petitioner requests that the

court judicially notice two unpublished United States District Court cases: Ledesma v. Marshall,

No. 08cv0309-JTM(CAB), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72707 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2009) and Hoffman

v. Marshall, No. CV 08-1427-R (RNB), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73917 (C.D. Cal. Jan 13, 2009).

////

Case 2:08-cv-01854-GEB-TJB Document 16 Filed 08/11/10 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

2

The citation to unpublished opinions reported on Westlaw or Lexis does not appear to

require a formal request for judicial notice. Like citation to other secondary legal authorities,

petitioner may cite to the cases and argue whatever relevance and persuasive effect he believes

they provide. However, because petitioner has requested it, the court will take judicial notice of

Ledesma and Hoffman. See Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that a

court may take judicial notice of “matters of public record” under Federal Rule of Evidence

201). The court notes that, by taking judicial notice of these cases, it merely recognizes them as

undisputed matters of public record, but does not at this time make any determination that the

facts or analyses therein are applicable to this case.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s November 3, 2009 request for

judicial notice, Dckt. No. 14, is granted. 

Dated: August 11, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01854-GEB-TJB Document 16 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2